Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Stakeholder Mistrust

Permalink:

Hospital Systems Are Creating Local Monopolies.

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

The primary stakeholders in the healthcare system are patients and physicians. Without patients or physicians there would not be a healthcare system.

Patients should be the drivers of the healthcare system. They are not. The primary drivers are the government and the healthcare insurance companies.

Hospital systems play the next largest role in driving up the costs of the healthcare system. Large hospital systems are constantly playing a game of chicken with the government and the healthcare care insurance industry.

Somehow, large hospital systems have been able to stay under the radar.  They have been able to avoid the responsibility of the rising costs of healthcare.

Large hospital systems and large hospital chains know that insurers need them to service their network of patients.  The healthcare insurance companies know that the hospital systems can hold them hostage to increased reimbursement.

 When a large hospital system demands an increase in reimbursement the healthcare insurance industry simply increases premiums.

 An example is the increasing premiums and costs that resulted from  Romneycare in Massachusetts. Romneycare’s structure is one large driver of rising costs in Massachusetts.

 Hospitals in Boston were extremely competitive before 1990.

 The race in the late1980’s was to build the best hospital/physician network in town. The goal was to attract patients, overwhelm the competitors and get the best reimbursement from insurers.

 In 1993 the model changed from a competitive model to a monopolistic model.

The merger between two eminent Harvard-affiliated hospitals, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital developed a hospital system (Partners) that would control the marketplace.

 The two most prestigious hospitals in the state forced the healthcare insurance industry to increase their reimbursement for providing care. Meanwhile, the Tufts hospital system offered a lower reimbursement rate but patients wanted to go to Partners.

Partners HealthCare created a monopoly. It could deny access to the patients of any insurer who dared not accept whatever Partners wanted to charge.

 What patient would want to be on an insurance plan that didn’t have access to the two most prestigious hospitals in Boston? 

 “Partners’ secret agreement in 2000 with Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, in which Blue Cross would give Partners more money, in exchange for Partners’ promise that they would demand the same rate increases from everyone else. The growth rate of individual insurance premiums in the state doubled.”

   

 Many executives at Blue Cross/ Blue Shield wanted to fight Partners’ demands. However discretion was the better part of valor.

An executive of Blue Cross/Blue Shield said,

“We are a successful business up against a hospital system that save people’s lives. It’s not a fair fight…

Many hospitals are merging throughout the country to take advantage of this market leverage and increase reimbursement from the healthcare insurer.

 Hospital systems are frantically trying to buy primary care physicians’ private practices to enjoy this leverage. The statistics claim that from 30% to 70% of practices have been bought by hospital systems.

 The fiction is that medical schools are producing a different breed of physicians. The fiction is all the present day physicians want is a salary.   I do not think this is true.

The barrier of entry to opening a private practice is cost. Physicians completing medical school have already incurred large debt.

The problem with being employed by hospital systems is the hospital system controls the overhead expenses. These expenses are inflated.  Many salaried physicians do not realize the unfair overhead expenses because the expenses are opaque.

 It takes a while for physicians in the system to figure out that they are not getting their fair share of the reimbursement for their productivity. At that point physicians start fighting with the hospital system. Some physicians quit en mass and open their own practice.

 Partners’ physicians figured it out. Partners is still intact but the physicians are now getting their fair share.

Physicians are starting to realize they have leverage over their hospital employee and that they must have control of their overhead.

 The Department of Justice is opening an investigation of hospital systems engaged in anticompetitive behavior. It is also challenging mergers in various parts of the country. Hospital systems have offered the defense that mergers will lead to “more efficient and cost-effective care.”

“But the long history of hospital mergers shows no evidence that consolidation leads to either. Indeed, according to FTC lawyer Matthew J. Reilly, the merged Toledo hospitals immediately went to work jacking up rates:”

 “Soon after the acquisition was consummated,” Mr. Reilly said, “ProMedica approached certain health plans to obtain higher reimbursement rates.” 

 “The higher rates, he said, are typically passed on to consumers in the form of higher premiums, co-payments and other costs.”

 Businesses act in the pursuit of their vested interests. Government sets the rules and businesses seek to take advantage of those rules.  

Somehow, secondary stakeholders must be controlled. It will take a consumer driven healthcare system to control it.

 

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

Please send the blog to a friend 

 

 

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

Permalink:

American Censorship Day: Administration’s Double Speak

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

A reader wrote in response to my blog Disinformation Compliments Of The New York Times.

His comment fits in perfectly with today’s protest American Censorship Day.

“2500 years ago the Father of Strategy said:

 “Today’s battles are information battles because information shapes both perception and opinion.  Those who use it to both attack and defend will win, those who do not will lose.”  Sun Tzu

"With the media’s help (and others who supported this man without doing their homework) we are at a strategic disadvantage.  It’s why I wrote my book in mathematical terms not political terms.  There is no arguing math. It is objective."

"Have a good day Dr. Feld.”

 Occasionally I look at the Daily Kos. Today, November 16, I looked at the Internet newspaper because I wanted to see what they had to say about American Censorship Day.

The Daily Kos nailed it. They also included a You Tube of Joe Biden defending the freedoms and the need for not censoring the Internet.

 “There are a couple of bills (like PROTECT IP) coursing through Congress that if enacted threaten the entire Internet only to protect outmoded business models of the movie and music industries.

One particularly pernicious example is the Stop Online Piracy Act which would require the US government to do their or any supposed "rightsholder's" bidding to shut down foreign "rogue" sites. The truth is that it would also shut down US sites  like Twitter and YouTube and including the DailyKos – (that means you, too) if found in violation of Hollywood's whims the SOPA provisions.  It even threatens to shut down and blacklist ISPs who don't cooperate.”

 These two bills play right into President Obama’s goal to control information. At the same time V.P. Joe Biden is talking about maintain the Internet free from censorship.

If this is intentional it is a neat way to keep the public confused.

The Daily Kos goes on to say, 

 “The bills are opposed by big Internet companies like Google, Facebook, Yahoo!, eBay, Twitter, LinkedIn, Zynga and others. Even VP Joe Biden has spoken out against it (although not directly and only until he is for it – coming soon!):”

  

 Joe Bidden statement on censorship of the Internet.         

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=55mKLcWhr9E

 

The New York Times finally published an editorial opposing the bill with politically correct qualifications.

The intention is not the same as China’s Great Firewall, a nationwide system of Web censorship, but the practical effect could be similar.”

Let us see how long it takes to get Joe Biden in sync with the administration’s goal.

Why doesn’t President Obama weigh in on the issue?

Where is the outrage from the Republican Party leadership in the House and the Senate about these bills?

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

Please send the blog to a friend 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Permalink:

The Government and American Censorship: 1984 In 2011.

 Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 I was going to continue to describe how the New York Times, through Ezekiel Emanuel, has fed the American public disinformation about the healthcare system to manipulate their opinions.

I decided that talking about American Censorship Day November 16th is more important.

I became aware of two bills flying through the Senate and the House by reading my son Brad Feld’s blog. The bills are Protect IP Act (PIPA – S.968) and Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA – H.R.3261).

  I searched the New York Times to see what the newspaper that (Prints all the news fit to Print”) had to say about the bills. My search produced this reply.

 Your search – Protect IP Act (PIPA – S.968) and Stop Online Privacy Act (SOPA – H.R.3261). – did not match any documents under All Results Since 1851.

 

 I have tried to get Brad excited about the lunacy of Obamacare.  He has not been interested in how Obamacare will ration care, restrict access to medical care, and restrict our freedom to choose and make our own healthcare decisions.

These two bills restricting the Internet lit his wick. It also lit Fred Wilson’s wick. I hope is it wakes everyone up. We must get past this centralized government manipulation and fight for our freedoms.

 Congress restricting the freedoms of the Internet is just another example in President Obama’s goal to have government control all of our decisions and actions. It will serve to restrict our freedoms.

 The most vital part of our economy and job growth at the moment is the Internet. These two bills will destroy this monumental jobs creating machine.

 It is another piece of lunacy brought to you by our federal government. I wonder how many Representatives and Senators have read the bills.

There are two very disturbing bills making their way through Congress: These bills are coated in rhetoric that I find disgusting since at their core they are online censorship bills. It’s incredible to me that Congress would take seriously anything that censors the Internet and the American public but in the last few weeks PIPA and SOPA have burst forth with incredibly momentum, largely being underwritten by large media companies and their lobbyists.”

 Let me remind everyone that large media companies offer huge support to President Obama and the Democrats in congress. These bills are congruent with the large antiquated medias’ vested interest and President Obama’s goal of central control over our lives.

EFFFree Software FoundationPublic Knowledge, Progress, Fight, Participatory Politics Foundation, and Creative Commons in support of free speech and a free and open Internet are opposing the bills and have organized American Censorship Day for tomorrow (11/16/11). The goal is to make every American aware of this new trick play and stop this lunacy.

 This Video video does a great job in explaining the two bills potential primary and secondary impact. I do not believe our congressional representatives understand the impact of the bills.

Someone is trying to railroad passage through congress.

 

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

 If you run a website, have a blog, or are interested in protecting our freedom go to the American Censorship site to see how you can participate on 11/16/11.

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

Please send the blog to a friend 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Florence Hill

    The bill that stops online privacy could never be a bill that protects us. Instead, it hinders our freedom of expression and the privacy given to us when we were born is now taken back from us just because of the crimes happening on the internet. The government should think of something that is more appropriate than stopping us from expressing ourselves.

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

Permalink:

Disinformation Compliments Of The New York Times

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 If you want to have an accurate opinion you should have accurate facts.

 Lately, the New York Times has been publishing opinion articles, in the name of truth, by experts who give opinions based on inaccurate facts.

The danger is that government policy based on those opinions is wrong and will lead to unintended consequences.

 Ezekiel Emanuel M.D. published such an article in his weekly opinionator blog on November 3rd,2011.   

I will review the facts used by Dr. Emanuel to form his opinion.

“Everyone — conservative and liberal — agrees that $2.6 trillion a year is too much to spend on health care, and that we have to cut costs. But they don’t agree on who is to blame or what is to be done.”

I agree.

 He proposes an artificial threshold of significant costs saving in order to form a policy.

 “ A useful threshold for savings is 1 percent of costs, which comes to $26 billion a year. Anything less is simply not meaningful.”

This number is random. It permits him to dismiss problems that cost the healthcare system less than $26 billion dollars a year.

 Health care spending in the United States typically increases by about $100 billion per year. Cutting a billion here or there from something that large is undetectable is meaningless. In health care, you have to be talking about tens of billions of dollars before you are talking about real money.

 He defines the divide between conservatives’ and liberals’ opinions.

He states that conservatives are concerned about the cost of tort reform. Liberals are concerned about the profits of the healthcare insurance industry and drug industry.  Using the wrong data to prove his point he concludes that these issues are simply a distraction from the real efforts of controlling healthcare costs.

 Nothing could be further from the truth.

Today, I will concentrate on examining his evidence against the need for tort reform.

 “ Conservatives favorite fix is to reform medical malpractice by limiting noneconomic damages, statutes of limitation and lawyers’ fees. In its favor is the fact that doctors’ fear of medical malpractice lawsuits is legitimate.

According to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, about 7.4 percent of doctors get sued each year. By age 65, even those in “low risk specialties” like pediatrics and dermatology face a 75 percent chance of being sued.

His argument continues by saying,

 It’s no wonder doctors order M.R.I.’s for routine headaches and monthly ultrasounds for normal pregnancies, despite these procedures not being required or recommended by professional guidelines.

His second argument against tort reform is the Congressional Budget Office 2009 scoring of the cost impact of tort reform.

“In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office did a comprehensive assessment of the potential cost savings from medical malpractice reforms.

Its conclusions: A package that included a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages, a $500,000 cap on punitive damages and a one-year statute of limitations for claims by adults would save about $11 billion a year — 40 percent from reduced malpractice premiums and the rest in the form of fewer defensive procedures like M.R.I.’s.

 Dr. Emanuel concluded that $11 billion dollars a year savings is insignificant because it is a cost saving below $26 billion dollars a year. He contends tort reform is a distraction from real efforts to control healthcare costs and should be ignored. The CBO scoring information has lead Dr. Emanuel to an inaccurate opinion.

The CBO did not score all the necessary data to arrive at the accurate cost savings from tort reform.  

 

 “A full accounting of medical malpractice reforms shows the benefits would be $242 billion a year.”

 

The CBO assessment is a gross underestimate of the potential cost savings. President Obama and the Democrats provided the CBO with scoring data. The data given was intended to give cover to congressional Democrats who say malpractice-liability costs are trifling.

The truth is a full accounting reveals that more than 10 percent of America's health expenditures per year are spend on tort liability and defensive medicine.

The percentage of healthcare costs is even greater when the Massachusetts Medical Society survey is taken into account. The amount spent for defensive medicine can be extrapolated to actual costs from this survey.  

I have written a series of blogs analyzing the impact Massachusetts Medical Society’s survey. The extrapolated costs turn out to be about $700 billion dollars a year. The real cost of defensive medicine is somewhere between $242 and $700 billion dollars a year.

http://stanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com/repairing_the_healthcare_/2009/04/president-obama-if-you-really-want-to-reduce-healthcare-costs-effectively-reform-the-medical-malpractice-tort-system-part-2.html

http://stanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com/repairing_the_healthcare_/2009/04/president-obama-if-you-really-want-to-reduce-healthcare-costs-effectively-reform-the-medical-malpractice-tort-system-part.html

http://stanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com/repairing_the_healthcare_/2009/04/president-obama-if-you-really-want-to-reduce-healthcare-costs-effectively-reform-the-medical-malpractice-tort-system-par.html

http://stanleyfeldmdmace.typepad.com/repairing_the_healthcare_/2009/04/president-obama-if-you-really-want-to-reduce-healthcare-costs-effectively-reform-the-medical-malpractice-tort-system-part-2.html

 In 2008 damage awards alone for medical malpractice claims reached $5.9 billion dollars.  The total of medical tort costs was $16 billion for legal costs, underwriting costs and administrative expenses. From 1986 the average jury award was $100,000. In 2006 the average award increased to $637,000. No one knows what the award value is for cases settled out of court.

Each year, 25% of practicing physicians are sued. 90% of physician sued are found innocent. The average defense cost is $100,000. This cost is not included in the CBO scoring

The fear of lawsuits causes most doctors to practice "defensive medicine" as the interviews of Massachusetts physicians points out.  The result is unnecessary testing, referrals, and procedures to protect themselves from allegations of medical negligence.  

A recent survey of doctors published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 93% of physicians admit to practicing defensive medicine. A 2008 survey by the Massachusetts Medical Society found that about 25 % of medical procedures are defensive in nature.

This waste results in increased healthcare insurance premiums. The premium increases result in an increase of at least 3 million uninsured people per year. When these uninsured people get sick they avoid going to a physician. This results in a decrease in  work productivity. It is estimated that the annual decrease in productivity is more than $40 billion dollars a year.

In states where tort reform has been instituted by placing caps on so-called non-economic damages, the malpractice costs have decreased 39%. This drop in costs is a result of decreased malpractice suits. The decrease is economically bad for the plaintiff attorneys. Annual malpractice premiums have gone down at least 13%. In fact, the medical malpractice business for plaintiff attorneys has about dried up in Texas.

As a result of tort reform in Texas, more than 16,500 physicians have moved to the state from non-tort reform states. More than 430,000 additional Texas have healthcare insurance as a result of the tort reforms according to the Perryman group.

  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, claims: "The whole premise of a medical malpractice 'crisis' is unfounded." Harry Reid listens to Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel’s opinion.

The influence of the disinformation is terrifying. Inaccurate opinions by influential people will never lead to a functional, affordable healthcare system.

 The disinformation concerning healthcare insurance company profits and drug company profits will be discussed shortly.

The New York Times needs a fact checker.

In my view it is irresponsible of President Obama and his advisors to distort the truth with disinformation.

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

Please send the blog to a friend 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Private Investigator NYC

    Reading a long and full of information article like this one are still one of the best way to improve knowledge.

  • EMR

    I dont think anyone really knows all of the information, bills, side notes and loop holes in these bills. No one really knows the whole story.

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

Permalink:

Class Act (Community Living Assistance Services and Supports) Has Been Shutdown

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

The CLASS Act was another ill-conceived part of President Obama’s healthcare reform act. President Obama and HHS (Health and Human Services) realized that this social entitlement program was going to be another entitlement disaster.  CLASS would have cost the taxpayers an additional $75 billion per year when it was passed on the condition of being budget neutral.

 CLASS was discontinued before it could join other entrenched government entitlement programs that are unsustainable. 

 CLASS quietly became an amendment to President Obama’s healthcare reform act. There was little discussion about CLASS when the Democrats in congress passed President Obama’s healthcare reform act. There was little discussion until Kathleen Sibelius’ announcement to discontinue CLASS.  

 She said;

  the administration was shutting down Class. After 19 months of research and consultation, “we have not identified a way to make Class work at this time.”

There has been little discussion about CLASS since her announcement.

CLASS was slipped into Obamacare as a legacy of to Senator Edward M. Kennedy. It establishes the first national system of long-term care insurance.

  1. It was voluntary;
  2. It was to pay a cash benefit that each recipient could decide how to use.
  3. It could not disqualify participants with pre-existing disabilities or charge them more.
  4. It had to pay for itself without relying on taxpayer dollars.
  5. It was to provide long-term care for the elderly and disabled.
  6. The program is not meant to shoulder the whole cost of long-term care, for either the elderly or younger people with disabilities, but it could make a great difference to strapped families.
  7. It would typically cover home care, assisted living, adult daycare, nursing home, and Alzheimer’s facilities for those who needed it,
  8. There would have been no apparent age or time limits for benefits.
  9. No underwriting in the selection of beneficiaries.                                                                                                                                                                                 

CLASS was designed to collect “premiums” during employees’ working years and spend the money immediately.

 When the obligations came due, the program would have been forced to seek a taxpayer bailout. “This is called redistribution of wealth.”

Medicare benefits typically pay for nursing home and home care coverage typically only for relatively short -term recovery (21 days) from an acute illness.

Medicare beneficiaries who need long term care beyond their benefits but don’t have private supplemental long term care insurance must pay out of pocket.

CLASS would pay recipients $50 a day for in-home care assistant to help with cooking, cleaning, and bathing.  This sounds cheap. However it would cost the government over $18,000 a year per person.

There are no signup restrictions and no increased premiums based on overall health and age at the time of signup.

The vast majority of the voluntary participants would be the sickest and most in need of long term care. There is no way that a voluntary program could be budget neutral.  

CLASS like Medicare would have few restrictions on the amount and types of care that beneficiaries receive.

Advocates for “health care is a right” are stuck with the dilemma what to do with a severely demented 99 year old nursing home patient with terminal cancer. Should that patient receive the same life extending care as a 65 year old with no medical problems?

This is a moral and legal dilemma that society must face. Patients and their family should make that decision. 

It is immoral for a group of bureaucrats to decide on treatment for the individual. It is equally questionable to have physicians decide to withhold treatment

It is one of the reasons patients should own their healthcare dollars and be responsible for how they spend them. Patients and their families should have some skin in the game.

The government could provide some of the healthcare dollars for those who qualify.

If those dollars are not spent at the end of the year, patients and their family would keep them. This would provide incentive to make logical decisions about the consumption of medical care.

There is no evidence that nursing home care or home assistance care or assisted living or adult day care increase life expectancy. These services provide comfort for the elderly and their children.

Rather than providing complete medical care for the elderly in the hope of extending life, less expensive ways can be devised to provide comfort other than warehouseing the elderly in nursing homes.

CLASS would have provided minimal financial assistance in providing comfort to the infirmed elderly. With mounting budget deficits America cannot even afford minimal help.

Basically CLASS was an insurance plan without any of the rational limits and restrictions that real insurance companies use to prevent themselves from going bankrupt.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   President Obama’s CLASS Act could never work. After the government spent $75 billion dollars a year on a tax neutral plan, he would say “OOPS”. America would enjoy the luxury of another money draining entitlement program.  

The “healthcare insurance” paradigm for providing healthcare to the elderly must be changed. Patients must be motivated to be responsible for their own care.

President Obama has tried to keep the conversation about discontinuing CLASS, another entitlement program, to a minimum.

The realization of the failure of CLASS should be used to think about healthcare coverage from a different perspective rather than letting our politicians making the same mistakes over and over again.    

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • supplements to build muscle fast

    I got this web site from my friend who shared with me regarding this website and now this time I am visiting this website and reading very informative articles at this time.

  • Georgiana

    Hello there I am so thrilled I found your webpage, I realy found you by mistake, while I wwas searching on Digg for something else, Anyways I am hedre now and would just like to say kuddos for a tremendous post and a all round interesting blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t have time to read it all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a great deal more, Please do keep up the superb job.

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

Permalink:

“It Is De Ja Vue All Over Again.” Yogi Berra

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 Economic downturns and upswings occur over and over again. Economists believe both downturns and upswings can be managed. However, economists continue to make the same policy mistakes. The mistakes result in an increase in depth and frequency of the economic swings.

Businesses both large and small and consumers are frustrated and angry about the present economic downturn and its prolonged continuation.

President Obama thinks his ideology is correct. However, his philosophy is flaming the fires of racial and economic divisions and unrest. His ideology is prolonging and increasing the depth of this economic downturn.

Before I present a systemized solution to the dysfunction of the healthcare system, I feel compelled to put the economic, political and social crisis in into a systems error perspective.

The national deficit is exploding because of excessive government spending. None of President Obama’s economic stimuli have worked.

The healthcare system and the medical care system are about to implode. There is a serious healthcare system crisis in America.

Economic uncertainty is increasing as a result of the unintended consequences created by the thousands of new regulations produced by the Obama administration’s bureaucracies. The regulations are written at the discretion of  non-elected government officials.

American businesses and the American people mistrust government more and more. Powerful vested interests influence government policy to their advantage.

 Congress and the President were elected “by the people for the people.” The government has gotten too large.  The government does not seem to be working in the interest of the people who voted for them.

The lunacy of government described by Ayn Rand’s in Atlas Shrugged seems to be occurring today.

In 1957 Ayn Rand having experienced a totalitarian government in her native Russia was upset by the trend in America. This resulted in her writing Atlas Shrugged.

 Right now President Obama’s ever-increasing bureaucracy and government control over every aspect of our lives is reminiscent of “Atlas Shrugged.”

Stephen Moore senior economic writer for the Wall Street Journal put together a summary PowerPoint presentation outlining the similarities of today with by President Obama and the lunacy that occurred in Atlas Shrugged.

  

 

Milton Freidman pointed out that Keynsian economics does not work. All the World’s societies run on greed. The trick is to harness greed for the common good.

  

 Big government generates large bureaucratic structures. Large bureaucratic structures do not fix anything. They make systems more complex and more difficult to manage.

 This is what is happening with the bureaucratic structures being formed by Obamacare. More departments are created. People running these departments have independent power. Multiple independent departments lead to multiple contradictions. The contradictions lead to greater costs to the system and added dysfunction.

 The Department of Human Services and CMS is such a system. It has become a  monster bureaucracy with the enactment of Obamacare.

  Healthcare organizaional system

 

Look at the names of some of the agencies created. They are right out of "Atlas Shrugged."

I recall President Reagan’s famous statement, “I am from the government and I am here to help.” 

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:

Paul Ryan on Medicare

 

 Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 Paul Ryan and the Republican House passed the 2012 budget that has been ignored by Harry Reid and the Senate.  Harry Reid gets his orders from President Obama. He chose not to consider the Republican House budget. Instead Democrat chose to demonize Paul Ryan.

 President Obama seems to be ignoring America’s debt and deficit spending crisis. The Senate has not produced a budget in over 900 days. President Obama has presented numbers to the CBO that would result in decreasing the budget deficit. The numbers presented to the CBO are phony. The Healthcare Reform Act will result in a huge increase in our deficit. It will result in higher taxes.

The traditional media has been very effective in demonizing Paul Ryan’s budget proposal.. The TV ad implying that Paul Ryan is pushing grandma off the cliff is a total lie. The media should fact check before accepting an inaccurate advertisement .

If anything, President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act will push grandma off the cliff.

Paul Ryan’s explanation of our debt crisis and deficit spending is clear. His budget proposal is also clear.

  

 

Paul Ryan questions the reasons President Obama and the Democratic Senate are ignoring the coming disaster.

  

The healthcare system is inundated with waste, fraud, abuse, a lack of competition and well-directed incentives for the healthcare system to function efficiently.

 President Obama’s healthcare reform law is awash with penalties, punishment and rationing as well as waste in the form of more bureaucracy, committees, studies and pilots. Medicare is unsustainable.

  

The healthcare insurance industry has figured out how to profit from the proposed ACO (Accountable Care Organizations). It means more bureaucracy resulting in higher fees to charge the government for providing administrative services. The result will be higher unsustainable costs for both the government and seniors.

  

 

 

  

 

Hospital systems know are not prepared for ACOs. ACO’s are too costly to set up. Most hospital systems information systems are not good enough to provide the data the government wants to evaluation the care given. Administrators managing hospital systems intuitively know that the government will make decisions that will be counter to hospital systems’ vested interests.

  

 

Physicians know that hospital systems are going to try to capture as much of their intellectual property as possible and restrict their freedom to make medical judgments. It will be very difficult to create physician hospital alignment under an ACO.

  

This is a must watch You Tube

Patients know ACO’s are going to restrict access to care, increase their out of pocket expenses, ration care and result in higher taxes and higher deductible. Partial implementation of President Obama’s healthcare act already has resulted in all of the above.

Hospital systems and physicians have not signed up for ACO’s. That resulted in Dr. Don Berwick and CMS revising their ACO final rules. Dr. Berwick is trying to entice hospital systems and physician groups to sign up and form ACO’s.

Dr. Berwick says he is for patients, hospital systems and physicians delivering better care to patients. I believe him. However, he is doing it the wrong way.

 The only thing the new rules accomplish is to make forming an ACO more affordable at the front end. Medicare ACO’s continue to be a government controlled system with penalties and punishments to providers. 

Patients’ treatments will be determined by a non-elected committee and not their physicians.  The committee might make the wrong decision by examining the wrong data.

The most recent example was the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on prostatic specific antigen (PSA).  

There was not one urologist on the committee. Another example was the USPSTF task force studying osteoporosis and the use of bone mineral density in men over 70. There was not one Clinical Endocrinologist on the committee.

All anyone has to do is go into any Wal-Mart on a Monday morning.  At least 50% of males over 70 years old look like they have lost several inches of height.  Each of these men has osteoporosis. They are at risk for hip fractures. Hip fractures at the least with decrease quality of life. At most, long hospitalization and death. Hip fractures can be prevented if treated properly.

Medicare will not pay for these men to have a bone density for the diagnosis of osteoporosis.  This leads me to the definition of quality medical care.

  The next step would be to study the number of hip fractures in men over 70 years old and the cost of treatment of these fractures. An evaluation of the quality  of life  after fracture must be evaluated to get an accurate assessment of the cost effectiveness of doing bone mineral density testing.

Medical care systems must be a patient centered and controlled. It must not be a government centered and controlled system. This is the only way to develop a cost efficient system. Dr. Berwick’s way will only increase the cost to the government. He will spend money the government does not have.

 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 Healthcare Insurance Industry Is Not Interested in Being Price Transparent.

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Truthful information (Price Transparency) is a huge issue in the healthcare system. Hospital systems, physicians, drug companies, pharmacies, the healthcare insurance industry and the government hide behind the opacity of information.

There is a mutual distrust among stakeholders.

This mutual distrust must be overcome and price transparency achieved before any progress can occur in Repairing The Healthcare System.

In order to achieve Pareto efficiency in the healthcare system all the stakeholders must agree to price transparency. The advantage of Pareto efficiency is that all the stakeholders will be better off in the long term while some might have to yield to some issues in the short term.

Lodi Hurwicz introduced the idea of incentive compatibility. His point is the way to get as close to the most efficient economic outcomes is to design mechanism in which everyone does best for himself or herself. 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.

 The lack of interest in price transparency by the healthcare insurance industry was demonstrated in New York State in the last few weeks.

Major health insurance companies seeking steep premium increases in New York have submitted memos to state officials to justify the higher rates. Now they are fighting to keep the memos from the public, saying they include trade secrets that competitors could use against them.

 Benjamin M. Lawsky, the state superintendent of financial services, whose new agency oversees the state insurance division said,

 “How these companies are setting these rates is vital for the public to know, and should not be treated like a state secret,” “Transparency will promote healthy competition and enable the public to rigorously comment on proposed rates, two goals that all of us should favor.”

 The state insurance division issues permits to healthcare insurance companies to sell insurance in the state. If a healthcare insurance company does not want the state to publish the reasons for its insurance premium increases they should not be issued a permit to sell healthcare insurance in that state.

Mr. Lawsky has ordered that the memos be made public. His decision will go into effect by the end of November unless the companies obtain a court injunction.

The healthcare insurance industry has held the advantage over consumers in the past under the long-standing “trade secret” exemption.  The state legislature should have the courage to eliminate that exemption.

The decision followed a battle by a consumer advocacy coalition, Health Care for All New York, which had first sought information for a policyholder in Queens who faced a 76 percent increase in his family’s Emblem Healthpremium. (The fee was later raised by 270 percent.)

State Insurance Department has received hundreds of consumer protests over proposed premium increases, many of them double-digit percentages without justification except that it must be done. The State Insurance Department now has the power to reject proposed rate increases. The question remains as to whether they have the courage to reject the increases.

Aetna and others are making outrageous profits selling healthcare insurance and paying its executives many millions of dollars a year in salary.

Aetna, like other carriers, has said premium increases are driven by the actual cost of health care. But consumer advocates dispute such assertions, while complaining that it is hard to challenge the increases without access to the company filings.

United Health/Oxford wrote, “This matter is of critical importance to us.” It called the information “proprietary.”

 Aetna wrote,  “Public disclosure in this format will provide ready and easy access to comprehensive pricing, product and marketing strategies,” and warned of “substantial and irreparable injury to Aetna.”

Independent Health said, “It had spent “well over $700,000 developing the trade secret documents” and estimated that the value of keeping them confidential was much higher.

It sounds as if both Aetna and Independent Health are threating the state with legal action. If they do not like the state rule they should move on and not sell insurance in that state.  

The state’s obligation is to protect its consumers from abuse. The state should simply deny permits to the healthcare insurance company to sell healthcare insurance in the state.

Moreover, other companies argued, the filings are too technical to be understood by consumers.

“Several of the exhibits to the rate application as well as the actuarial memorandum contain not only trade secrets as noted above, but esoteric actuarial pricing precepts best understood by fellow actuaries and health plan competitors,” Sean M. Doolan, a lawyer representing Excellus, Empire, Connecticut General, and Capital District Physicians’ Health Plan wrote to state officials.

 “These documents, often speaking of concepts such as morbidity and anti-selection, could cause not only confusion, but also unnecessary alarm to the layman policyholder.”

These are excuses. They are lame and patronizing. Consumers are not as dumb as the insurance industry thinks.

 Elisabeth Benjamin is vice president for health initiatives at the Community Service Society of New York and a founder of Health Care for All New York, a coalition of 100 groups working for more affordable medical care. She said the group has hired its own actuaries.

“The only way the public will find out whether these outlandish price hikes are justified is if we can see the underpinnings,” she said. “They would like to have us ignorant. What they are saying to us, by opposing the disclosure of why they think their rate increases are justified, is that they want to keep us uninformed consumers.”

They sure do want to keep consumers ignorant. I hope the state officials are not intimidated by the healthcare insurance companies. I hope the state officials are supported by New York’s governor. Consumers are starting to understand their power. They need to drive the healthcare system. This issue is a good place to start.

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:

RomneyCare and Jobs

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Everyone except Mitt Romney agrees RomneyCare was used as a model for President Obama’s healthcare reform act. Mitt Romney insists that on the first day of his Presidency he will repeal Obamacare. He contends that healthcare reform should be a state problem. Each state should choose what is right for itself.

RomneyCare was enacted in 2006. It was implemented it in 2007. It offered insurance subsidies for low-income individuals, expanded Medicaid coverage and created an individual mandate to obtain insurance. Pay-or-play requirements for employers were imposed on employers. It created a state insurance exchange through which many of the newly insured Massachusetts residents obtained coverage.

It sounds like Obamacare.

 In Massachusetts 98% of its citizens have healthcare insurance coverage. Massachusetts has also experienced a large increase in health insurance premiums. The healthcare insurance costs have nearly doubled in Massachusetts.  There is increasing political pressure and public opinion opposing the increasing budget deficit resulting from RomneyCare.

President Obama has bailed out Massachusetts twice to the tune of 8 billion dollars.

        The results of a study “Health Care Reform and the Health Care Workforce — The Massachusetts Experience” was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on September 22, 2011 by  Douglas O. Staiger, Ph.D., David I. Auerbach, Ph.D., and Peter I. Buerhaus, Ph.D., R.N.

 

 The study looked at job growth in the healthcare sector in Massachusetts since the implementation of RomneyCare.

My impression in 2007 was that Massachusetts would experience an increase in healthcare costs, an increase in budget deficits and a decrease in availability of medical care.

I also knew there would be an increase in administrative costs and administrative jobs. Anytime a new bureaucracy is begun there is an increase in hiring bureaucrats. Many times bureaucrats’ income is higher than physician’s income.  

 The study showed there was an increase in job growth in the healthcare sector. The increase in hiring was 5.5% greater than job growth in the rest of the United States’ healthcare sector.

  Romney care and jobs 1

 “Had health care employment in Massachusetts grown at the same rate as in the rest of the country, approximately 18,000 fewer people would have been employed in health care by 2010.”

 It turns out that most of these healthcare related jobs were not related to the delivery of medical care by physicians or healthcare providers.

  Romneycare 2

 From 2005–2006 to 2008–2009, employment per capita in administrative occupations grew by 18.4% in Massachusetts, as compared with 8.0% in the rest of the country (P=0.015).

 This data clearly confirms my bias. The data shows a pattern that should be obvious to all.

Unfortunately, none of the differences in percentage in each category are statistically significant. In order for a comparison to be statistically significant the p value must be less than .05. A p value of 0.015 is greater than .05. It is not statistically significant.

Two weeks ago I had an email exchange with a reader about the importance of accurate data. Data is scientific and complicated. It increases the complexity of the healthcare system.

The reader wrote,

 “With the advent of HIT products such as EHR’s, registries and “smart” hardware, it is now much easier to access data that can be used to drive improved outcomes.  Most EHR’s can provide population level data that can be used to view the level of care presently rendered and to track changes in outcomes as new processes and hardware are adopted.

It will be necessary in the near future for providers to develop their skills in using data to modify processes at their site so that the patient outcomes are significantly better.  New payment models based upon quality of care will require this.  Successful employment of these techniques will be rewarding for all involved—patients, providers and payers.

 Have a great weekend.”

I replied,

“If data is not accurate and the results are not statistically significant, the conclusions, decisions and policy on the basis of the data are not going to be good.

 I have seen business data and healthcare policy data that has been poor, inaccurate and not statistically significant pose as accurate scientific data. This data has led to faulty business and health care policy decisions. “

Physicians have been paranoid about the collection of data evaluating their performance. Both valid and invalid data have been used to penalize them. Data collections should be used as a learning experience not as a punitive weapon to reduce reimbursement.”

 Toyota has done it in its factory auto production. My reader continues

 “This approach to providing quality in services and products has been used for many years outside of healthcare.  Toyota developed a unique approach based principally on plan-do-check-act (PDCA) and teamwork that resulted in a superior product that enabled them to be the standard of quality in production for many years.”  

 It is time the physicians adopt this model. Unfortunately it will not happen until the competing learning systems (experiential, [physicians learning] and complicated [data collection]) are managed effectively and stakeholders’ incentives are aligned.

 It is time the healthcare system started to use accurate data. Accurate data can extend the legacy experience of physicians. Only then will the healthcare system start aligning incentives. 

 Some healthcare providers are starting to adopt data driven models such as PDCA. I believe adoption can only be driven by trust among stakeholders. Patients are first and they must assume responsibility to drive the system.

 The only way they will do that is if they have a financial incentive to drive the system.

I will try to describe a framework necessary for consumers of healthcare to drive the healthcare system. Successful employment of these techniques will be rewarding for all involved—patients, providers and payers.

 

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

 

 

 

  • Michelle

    If people really want quality insurance, it is available and affordable. They just need to make it a priority in their budget and call health insurance reps to find them the best deals that fit them.

  • Darwin

    I don’t understand why you say 0.015 > 0.05. It is not.

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