Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Results found: 57

Permalink:

Some Innovative Software Opportunities In Medicine.

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

I have pointed out that all the stakeholders are to blame for the dysfunction of the healthcare system.

 I have also explained the difference between the healthcare system and the medical care system.

In the past two weeks I have explained that both the medial care system and the healthcare system are ripe for disintermediation with innovative software just as the publishing system was dis-intermediated with amazon.com, the music industry with ITunes and the movie industry with Neflix.  

John Goodman has recently written a series of articles on how physicians are trapped by the current healthcare system.

 The core problem has developed over the last 40 years. The government and the healthcare insurance industry have created a huge payment hairball between patients and physicians.

ICD and CPT coding has created complications beyond belief for patients and physicians. The ICD 10 is more confusing that ICD 9.

ICD 9 contained 15,000 codes. ICD 10 contains 68000 codes.

Instead of closing the window for fraud and abuse it has opened it further.

The problems with coding can be dis-intermediated by innovative software with its focus on patients and physicians.

A retired physician wrote the following note to me after reading my posts about innovative software and the destruction of the patient-physician relationship. His narrative was in response to the WSJ article “Should Physicians Use Email to Communicate With Patients?”

The writer is a retired physician with 40 years of private practice experience. He has lived through the development of the dysfunction in the healthcare system.

 “Stan 

 This observation has been on my mind for a long time. The health issues in the 4th section of the WSJ today January

23,2011 caused me to put the ideas down on paper. 

 D

 “In doctors’ offices all across the country, a scenario like this is being played out as I write these comments.

 The patient has a complaint, the physician listens (or not), performs an examination (or not) makes a decision regarding the probable cause of the complaint, writes a prescription (or two, or three), offers some instructions regarding what the patient should be doing to help himself (or herself), says goodbye and asks that the patient return at some future date for reassessment (or not).”

 This is an excellent description of the disconnect between the care of patients by physicians. Patients and physicians should have a relationship where patients are at the center of the physicians’ healthcare team. The physicians are coaches. The physicians’ team is the assistant coaches helping physicians treat patients. 

 “What happens next is where I’d like to spend a little time in this essay.

 The written prescription/s may be hand-carried to the pharmacy, the doctor may telephone the prescription/s to the pharmacy, or more commonly these days, the prescriptions may be sent on line or by fax, with the doctor’s assistant doing the sending.

The government is now paying an incentive bonus to the physicians for e-prescriptions. Unfortunately 60% of physicians’ offices cannot afford the software.

 This is a place for a fully functional ideal electronic medical record in the cloud.

 “Now here is where the situation can get dicey. Up to 20% of all those prescriptions are never picked up by the patient. After an interval, they are returned to stock in the pharmacy. It is unlikely that the doctor will be made aware that this has happened.”

 The e-prescription must be a two way street. The physician should be notified electronically by the pharmacy if a patient does not pick up a prescription.

 The physician’s office should automatically contact the patient and explain the importance of the medication.

Other results can also happen. The patient picks up some, but not all of the prescriptions because of the cost versus what he/she can afford.

In the fully functioning EMR software can be included to enable the pharmacy to inform the physician.

Or the patient picks up all of the medications ordered. Once at home, the patient may or may not take the medications as prescribed.

 The instructions from the doctor may be recalled incompletely or inaccurately.

The healthcare team can electronically reinforce instructions and goals for the medication using the Internet sites picked by the physician.

 The physician’s healthcare team must be an extension of the physician’s care.

Freestanding organizations will fail if they are not an extension of physicians’ care.

The CBO recently revealed that President Obama’s pilot studies using freestanding chronic disease management organizations have failed to lower the cost of care.

My fear is that President Obama and his healthcare administrators will conclude that chronic disease management does not lower healthcare costs.

Effective chronic disease management of diabetes can lower the complication rate by at least 50%. Decreasing complications can lower the cost of care by 80%

The medications may not be tolerated by the patient, and as a consequence, he/she may elect to discontinue one or more of them, or may elect to take them in some manner other than as directed by the doctor.

The patient may not notify his physician of his difficulty taking the medication.

Social networking between physicians and patients and patients in that physicians practice could solve this problem.  

Patients understand that most cognitive physicians are reimbursed for coded procedures. Advice over the telephone or email is not reimbursed. A mechanism for reimbursement must be developed for using social networking.

The medications may prove effective in alleviating the problem that caused the patient to see their physician in the first place, or they may not.

Most of the events described will not be known to the patient’s physician until the patient is next seen in the office, and maybe not even then.

E-mail could have malpractice liability in the current malpractice environment. This is one more reason Tort reform is essential.

In a perfect world, a lot of the issues raised above could be made better by a few simple moves. The pharmacy could make the physician’s office aware that the prescriptions were never picked up.

Someone in the physician’s office could call or email the patient 3-4 days after the visit, and inquire whether the patient is taking the medication,

Reinforcing the physician’s instructions, and inquiring whether the medications are helping the patient, asking if there have been any problems arising from the use of the medication, and passing what is learned back to the physician.

 The reinforcement of the instructions can be very helpful, and the awareness of issues relating to the medication can lead to more timely resolution of problems the patient is experiencing.

It has always seemed to this writer that the doctor-patient relationship would be well served if we all started to use what I call “The Doctor Phil Question”, which goes like this: “How’s that working out for you?” 

It is all about patients’ responsibility for their healthcare and their healthcare dollar. It is about consumer driven healthcare and the patient physician relationship. 

 As long as the government and the healthcare insurance industry continues to drive a wedge between the patient and physician the cost of healthcare will continue to rise.

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

Please send the blog to a friend

 

Permalink:

A Little More Disinformation From The New York Times

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

It is getting harder and harder for me to read the New York Times. The half-truths are glaring. The bias is becoming more and more transparent.

 Dr. Ezkiel Emanuel’s article in the New York Times on November 3rd continues with these half-truths and bias.

“According to many on the left, health insurance companies are sleazy and unethical, making obscene profits by charging high prices to sick people, giving physicians and patients the runaround to avoid paying bills, and rescinding policies just when people who paid in good faith get cancer, while their executives often walk away with millions in compensation.”

All of the above is true. The main issue is how the healthcare industry can continue to get away with it.

Dr. Emanuel has not bothered to learn how to read the healthcare insurance industry’s financial statements.

The individual state’s Board of Insurance is in charge of regulating the healthcare insurance industry. The stated goal is to protect consumers.

 All state boards issue licenses to sell healthcare insurance yearly to healthcare insurers.

Few of the state Boards of Insurance have enforced their own regulations. The state insurance boards could easily refuse to issue a license to a company that doesn’t follow the regulations

Dr. Emanuel takes the healthcare insurance industry’s bottom line literally, while ignoring the financial facts.        

 “Last year, health insurance companies did rack up big profits, but it turns out that the combined profits of the country’s five largest for-profit health insurance companies — United, WellPoint, Aetna, Humana and Cigna — were $11.7 billion, only 0.5 percent of total health care spending.”

 Even confiscating every penny of those profits would add up to less than half of the cost-saving threshold. And even not-for-profit insurance companies need to have an operating margin — a profit by another name. There just isn’t enough money there to make a dent in health care spending.

 Dr. Emanuel’s obvious conclusion is $11.7 billion profit is not meaningful. It should not be considered to influence the total cost of healthcare or future healthcare policy.

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

 He says .

  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.

  The bottom line figure after expenses might be published as only $11.7 billion dollars but the real profits are buried into the profit built into the administrative expenses that do not get added into the bottom line.

The truth is,

 Over 20 percent of consumers who purchase coverage in the individual market today are in plans that spend more than 30 cents of every premium dollar on administrative costs. 

An additional 25 percent of consumers in this market are in plans that spend between 25 and 30 cents of every premium dollar on administrative costs. 

And in some extreme cases, insurance plans spend more than 50 percent of every premium dollar on administrative costs.  

President Obama thinks his law will decrease these expenses. The public has also been lead to believe that Medicare’s administrative overhead is 2.5%. The 2.5% is the overhead to maintain a CMS department outsourcing administration services to the healthcare insurance industry and generating new regulations.

The percentage of overhead has to be higher much higher now with the development of Dr. Berwick’s bloated bureaucracy.

CMS outsources its administrative services to the healthcare insurance industry. The healthcare insurance industry adds an additional 20-30% to the bid price for services claims.

A large administrative service provider (Trailblazers) in Texas was just outbid for its administrative services by an east coast administrative service provider (Highmark) confirming the bid pricing mechanism.

Strangely, both Trailblazers and Highmark are subsidiaries of Blue Cross/ Blue Shield. This is the place that 20-30% is taken off the top of the Medicaid and Medicare budget and is not included in the bottom line.

The healthcare insurance industry is required to maintain the Medical-Loss Ratio at 80-85%. Medical Loss Ratio means it has to spend 80 to 85 percent of premium dollars on medical care and health care quality improvement rather than on administrative costs.

Healthcare insurance companies have been permitted, by the government, through the influence of its lobbyists, to shift certain expenses from administrative expenses into the patient care expenses.  The result is less money spent on direct patient care.  

 

          The cost of verifying the credentials of doctors in its networks.

  1. The cost of ferreting out fraud such as catching physicians over testing patients or doing unnecessary operations.
  2. The cost of programs that keep people who have diabetes out of emergency rooms.
  3. The sales commissions paid to insurance agents.
  4. Taxes paid on investments.
  5. Taxes paid on premium income.

These expenses are designated as direct patient care expenses. Each expense is a profit center. This profit is not reflected in the healthcare insurance company’s bottom line. These are the reasons the net income figures are bogus.    

Aetna made $4.8 billion dollars in profit on Medicare Advantage and Medicare Part D alone two years ago.

“Citigroup research group estimates that presently the overall healthcare insurance industry’s net profit is about $56.5 billion per year. The addition of 16 million enrollees will add $40 billion dollars in net profit to the healthcare insurance industry’s bottom line.”


“Gail Boudreaux, UnitedHealth's executive vice president, told investors last month that: "The Medicaid space is a significant long-term growth opportunity for us. It's a big market that's getting even bigger." UnitedHealth pegs the value of new bids or expansions over the next three years at $40 billion. 

The net profit of $11.9 billion dollars is a bogus figure. Dr. Emanuel has to know this. The healthcare insurance industry is cooking its books.  

President Obama and his administrative advisors are pretending to believe the numbers produced by the healthcare industry.  

The administration in turn is using the media and its power of the pulpit to convince the public to believe it.

The bizarre thing is that the scheme is working as reflected in the comments to Dr. Emanuel’s article.

This is disinformation are its best.

 

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

Please send the blog to a friend 

 

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.  

 

Permalink:

The Healthcare System and Managing Complexity

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

 Many readers were confused by my last four blogs, It Is Easy To Forget, How To Manage Complexity, Aligning Incentives Is A Must In Creating An Efficient Healthcare System and How Home Depot Learned To Manage Complexity.

I have received comments like, What does this have to do with the healthcare system? Who cares about Mechanism Design? What does the healthcare system have to do with Pareto efficiency?

One person wrote; “Dr. Feld, I do not get it. None of this relates to the healthcare system.”

All of these blogs relate to the dysfunction in the healthcare system. The healthcare system has a larger “Blind Spot” than many large corporations in America. 

My brother and I have been discussing his analysis of the Blind Spot in corporate America in detail. The subtitle of his book is “A Leader’s Guide To IT-Enabled Business Transformation.”

It dawned on me that his transformation model could be applied to the healthcare system. Everyone knows the healthcare system has to be fixed but no one knows what to do.

President Obama and Dr. Don Berwick are making the dysfunction worse as they impose their complicated ideas on the healthcare system.

A reader wrote in response to my Home Depot article,

 

Yeah, this is good stuff–consumer oriented.  Obama & those ox#70 professors he listens to don't get this at all.” 

I often get comments that the Healthcare System is impossible to repair. It is too complex.

Medicine is going through a transformation. There is conflict between vested interests and between learning systems.

1. Stakeholders are fighting to protect their vested interests. The fight has intensified as a result of the transformation. The conflicts must be resolved.

2. Physicians continually learn through the experience of daily medical practice. The experience gained increases physicians’ medical judgment. This learning system is important for the physician-patient relationship. It promotes the confidence patients should have in their physicians.

 As a result of the dysfunction in the system physicians are abandoning their medical judgment in the pursuit of defensive medicine and patients are losing confidence in their physician’s judgment.

Data should be accurate and informative for patients and physicians to improve care. Instead the data collected has been punitive to both patients and physicians.

3. Advances in medical science and medical technology represent complicated learning systems. New advanced techniques are developed in surgery, medicine, genetics and therapeutics.

Information technology offers a chance to enhance experiential learning but has not been deployed properly. Instead it has led to disinformation and increased stakeholder mistrust.

Healthcare insurance companies, hospital systems, and the government have installed complicated data collecting information systems to gather insight into the cost and quality of medical care.

In the past, much of the data has not reflected the true value of the care of physicians. The data has been used to the disadvantage of patients and physicians.

4. No one has understood the patterns of behavior that have resulted from these conflicting learning systems and vested interests. No one has figured out how to manage the complexity generated by these interactions in the healthcare system.

The Home Depot example of learning to manage complexity can be applied to the healthcare system.

The physician is the store manager. The patient is the customer.  All the rest of the stakeholders should be the supporting cast.

Once everyone gets it, a sensible conversation can begin. Only then can the healthcare system be on its way to achieving Pareto efficiency.

Readers should think about their recent healthcare system encounters. I would guess many have walked away with an unpleasant feeling toward the healthcare system whether it was the encounter with the insurance company, hospital, government, pharmacy, or physician.

 Navigating the healthcare system has become an unpleasant chore.

It is also unpleasant for all the stakeholders. Yet none of the stakeholders see their Blind Spot.

These unpleasant and inefficient activities are created by the complexity of the healthcare system. This complexity can be broken down into components parts. Only then can the complexity of the healthcare system be managed. 

The most important asset all of us own is our health. Every effective effort must be made by the healthcare system to maintain our health. We as individuals must be responsible for maintaining our health.  Individual responsibility can be achieved.  When it is everyone will win.

Central control of our healthcare system with government imposition of rules and regulations to control patients’ freedom and physicians’ medical judgments will not work.

   

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

 

 

 

Permalink:

Aligning Incentives Is A Must In Creating An Efficient Healthcare System

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 Mechanism Design has demonstrated that the most efficient systems are created when everyone’s vested interests are aligned.

 

“An example is defense contracting. If you agree to pay on a cost plus basis you have created incentive for the contractor to be inefficient.

The defense contractor will build enough extra into a fixed price system to account for cost overruns.  The cost overrun would be permitted in the rules if the price was transparent. If there were no cost overruns the contractor’s profit would be increased. It would provide incentive to be efficient.

 “If you agree to pay a fixed price, you can come close to an efficient price if you have all the truthful information.”

A reader wrote’

Stanley:

History has proven over and over again that only the market mechanism of willing sellers and willing buyers is the optimal way to allocate economic resources. This presumes an informed buyer, and a willingness of sellers to compete for buyers. Adam Smith was clear on this in the Wealth of Nations.
 

If incentives are aligned and truthful price information is available an efficient system is created.  Most stakeholders think they can do better by not sharing truthful information. If the rules of the game require truthful information the system can become an efficient market driven solution.

The healthcare system must become market driven. At present the healthcare system is an artificially distorted free market system. Government intervention has distorted and made the free market inefficient.  

The distorted free market has led to higher prices.

The concept of Pareto efficiency implies one stakeholder has to yield something which makes another stakeholder better off. The reality is in an efficient system the first stakeholder is worse off than he/she theoretically could be.

The first stakeholder yielding makes him/her better off than he/she is but still worse than he/she could theoretically be. The temptation is to not be truthful in order to maintain dominance at the expense of others.

 Leoid Hurwicz observed as others had that the dispersion of information was at the heart of the failure of a planned economy. He observed that there was a lack of incentive for people to share their information with the government truthfully.

 The free market mechanism was far less afflicted than central planning bureaucracy by such incentive problems. The free market economy was by no mean immune to this defect.

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

This can explain the power of my Ideal Medical Savings Account.

Consumers creating rules of engagement in a market driven economy can get closest to ideal Pareto efficiency. Since customers determine success of an enterprise by creating demand in a transparent environment, they can get closer to an efficient system.

Consumers can create the rules of the game for compatible incentives. Consumers must have the appropriate financial incentives to maintain their health. They must also own their healthcare dollars.

The government should help consumers design the rules of the game and then get out of the way. The rules should be designed so the patient is first. 

At present the insurance industry is taking advantage of the patients, doctors and hospital systems. The hospital systems are taking advantage of the patients, doctors and insurance companies. Doctors are taking advantage of the insurance companies, hospital systems, patients and the government. The government is taking advantage of the hospital systems, the doctors and the patients. Everyone is pursuing his or her own vested interest at the expense of other stakeholders.

 The insurance companies take advantage of employers.  The drug companies are taking advantage of patients and unduly influencing physicians.

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 can result in producing effective rules and appropriate controls.

Historically, central planning has not worked. 

Before effective healthcare reform can take place, rules acceptable to all the stakeholders must be in place. Stakeholders must create price transparency and understand the value of compromise.

It must be understood why it is important that consumers drive the healthcare system and not the central government. Only consumers can create an undistorted efficient market driven system.

Consumers have to have be empowered and given incentives to align all the stakeholders’ incentives. The best and easiet program to achieve this goal is my ideal medical saving account.

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

 

 

Permalink:

How To Manage Complexity?

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

 Complex systems are the result of interactions of experiential learning system and complicated learning systems. Complicated learning systems are created by scientific innovation. Managing the interaction effectively results in efficiencies and success.

On November 11,2007 I wrote about Mechanism Design and the Healthcare System. This Economic Theory won the Noble Prize that year. Few people have ever heard of the theory of Mechanism Design.  

Many of the stakeholders in the healthcare system have some excellent ideas. I would include Dr. Donald Berwick and President Obama on that list.  Problems usually arise from conflicting ideology and method of managing the complexity of competing ideologies.

The key is to align all the stakeholders’ vested interests in a fair and equitable way. It is important for all the stakeholders to agree with the method of managing the complexity created.

It is important to start a sensible discussion on how to Repair the Healthcare System. President Obama has a very difficult time the forcing adaption of his plan to Repair the Healthcare System because of conflicting ideologies.    

The managing of the healthcare system and it many complicated parts have to be approached in a different way.

 The key question should be who is the healthcare systems customer?

The people are the customer. President Obama’s believes the central government is the customer.

Consumers and physicians believe President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Plan is punitive. President Obama has disregarded their views.

I wrote in 2007,

“Last month the Nobel Prize in economics was awarded to Leoid Hurwicz, Roger Meyerson and Eric Maskin . They were awarded the Nobel Prize for developing the economic theory of “Mechanism Design.” My first reaction was “what is that?”

After some research I realized the power of Mechanism Design. It is a brilliant economic theory that could solve many of our economic problems. Mechanism Design applied to our healthcare system could solve most of the dysfunction.

What is it? “ In economics, mechanism design is the art and science of designing rules of a game to achieve a specific outcome, even though each participant may be self-interested.

Everyone in a free country tries to defend his/her vested interest. It is noble to defend the vested interest of others. Unfortunately, it does not work in reality. Rules can be constructed to serve all the stakeholders vested interest with consumers being the key stakeholder.

 Setting up a structure in which each player has an incentive to behave as the designer intends does this. The game is then said to implement the desired outcome. The strength of such a result depends on the solution concept used in the game. It is related to metagame theory, which is the theory of games the playing of which consists of developing the rules of another game.

This is a complex thought. If the rules of the metagame are impossible to comprehend, follow or are total opposed to the participants’ vested interest the fallback position is the rules of the first game.

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

This should be the goal of everyone in a rational society.

 However, it is impossible to guarantee optimal results for all four outcomes simultaneously in many situations, particularly in markets where buyers can also be sellers

A rule to the advantage of the seller can be a disadvantage to the buyer. The stakeholders need to figure out an appropriate tradeoffs.

 Thus significant research in mechanism design involves making trade-offs between these qualities.

The tradeoffs can be reasonable. They must be shown to be to the advantage of all the stakeholders.

 Other desirable criteria that may be achieved include fairness (minimizing variance between participants' utilities), maximizing the auction holder's revenue, and Pareto efficiency. More advanced mechanisms sometimes attempt to resist harmful coalitions of players.”

Pareto efficiency can be understood in the following graphic.

  Parero efficiency

 In essence when stakeholders are fighting neither B or C neither wins nor achieves total victory. The result is approximately position A. If managing complexity can convince both B and C they would be better off in position D the system has aligned incentives. Both are better being at position D.

 “Looking at the Production-possibility frontier, shows how productive efficiency is a precondition for Pareto efficiency. Point A is not efficient in production because you can produce more of either one or both goods (Butter and Guns) without producing less of the other. Thus, moving from A to D enables you to make one person better off without making anyone else worse off (rise in Pareto efficiency). Moving to point B from point A, however, is not Pareto efficient, as less butter is produced. Likewise, moving to point C from point A is not Pareto efficient, as fewer guns are produced. A point on the frontier curve with the same x or y coordinate will be Pareto efficient.”

Lodi Hurwicz contributed 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.

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.

Everyone claims they are afraid to be sued because of regulations. Tort Reform and regulation simplification is a must for price transparency.

If everyone’s incentives are aligned you have a much more efficient economic system. An example is defense contracting. If you agree to pay on a cost plus basis you have created incentive for the contractor to be inefficient.

 I you agree to pay a fixed price you can come close to an efficient price if you have all the truthful information. If you do not you have a fixed price and price transparency with incentives aligned, you create the incentive to be overcharged.

 The fixed pricing in healthcare must be flexible for all stakeholders. All the variables cannot be controlled during a disease process.

The variables are the patient’s responsibility for their own care, the skill of physicians to guide that patient's care and the ability to communicate information (Technology/ electronic communication) with patients and other stakeholders to increase the efficiency of the first two variables.

Most people can do better by not sharing truthful information. If the rules of the game require truthful information you can get close to an efficient market driven solution.

At present there are several impediments to ideally increasing efficiency. In fact, the incentives are present to decrease efficiency. There are numerous examples where central control has not increased efficiency.

Patients are the consumers of healthcare. Consumers must drive the healthcare system. This is the only way to maximize efficiency. 

 

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

Permalink:

A Big Idea For President Obama


Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

President Obama has been disingenuous during his entire time in office.  He has publicly asked for ideas on Repairing The Healthcare System before and after he took office. I will repeat the advice that he has ignored in the next few blog post.  

He has been influenced by the ideas of Tom Daschle and Don Berwick to the exclusions of ideas that might actually be effective. Both men are convinced that the healthcare system would be repaired if there were a complete government take over.

President Obama has been extremely cunning in working his way toward a complete government takeover of medicine. Some of Mr. Daschle and Dr. Berwick’s ideas are good. Most of their ideas will not fix the defects in the healthcare system. There is a total disregard of citizens in their program.  

President Obama is expanding the bureaucracy and creating a wasteful morass of new agencies. Those agencies are generating incomprehensible and non-enforceable regulations. The regulations are trying to commoditize medical care  in America. 

Our healthcare system is a mess. Medicare and social security in its present form will result in a 100 trillion dollar a year deficit in 75 years. The solution to Repairing the Healthcare System is relatively simple. The key to the solution is social responsibility by all stakeholders involved in the healthcare system and individual responsibility by the consumers and potential consumers of healthcare.

Neither political party is getting behind a big idea that’s bold enough to actually solve major problems.  

Unfortunately, secondary stakeholders (the healthcare insurance industry, hospital systems and government) have not become socially responsible toward the best interests of consumers. Consumers will assume responsibility with significant incentives and appropriate education.

 One big idea is to reform the food industry. The food industry’s products and advertising undermine Americans eating healthy. The food industry’s advertising has to be redirected to consumer education and not consumer self-destruction.  President Obama’s approach to healthy eating has been tokenism.

He has ignored appropriate input on how to fix the food industry in an effort to decrease obesity in America.

  No one has asked for the opinion of practicing physicians. The focus of all healthcare policy “experts” is economics.

Here is a big idea.

Obesity leads to chronic diseases such as Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus. Walk into any Coronary Care Unit in the nation and 80% of the patients with myocardial infarctions are obese and have Diabetes Mellitus. The complications of Diabetes Mellitus cost the healthcare system $160 billion dollars a year. Eliminating obesity will reduce the incidence of Diabetes Mellitus by at least 50%.

Cheap manufactured food subsided by the government results in 19% of America’s fossil fuel use. It also results in more than 75% of the obesity in this country.

Eighty per cent of the healthcare dollars are spent on the complications of chronic diseases. The eighty percent cost to the healthcare system is one trillion six hundred million dollars a year.

The obesity epidemic is interconnected with our energy policy and energy subsidies, farm policies and subsidies, environmental policy and conditioned attitudes toward fast food.

 Michael Pollan points out the problem with our entire food supply system and the impact it has on healthcare, the environment and energy.

“Which brings me to the deeper reason you will need not simply to address food prices but to make the reform of the entire food system one of the highest priorities of your administration: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change

The three problems are tightly connected. The repair of each problem has to must be done in a creative way that aligns all the stakeholders’ incentives with consumers’ health and wellness.

Michael Pollen goes on to tell President Obama “Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on — but as you try to address them you will quickly discover that the way we currently grow, process and eat food in America goes to the heart of all three problems and will have to change if we hope to solve them.

Mr. Pollan’s point is the way we grow food and manufacture food stuff is a major reason for obesity and pollution leading to the complications of chronic diseases (Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and chronic lung disease). This results in a 1.6 trillion dollar cost to the healthcare system. All American’s needs is the will to change.  

It is going to require a lot of public and congressional education. It will be harder to educate congress than the public. Vested interest lobbying drives Congress.  President Obama must help the public create a greater voice than the special interests. The public will then lobby the congress.

Michael Pollan says “the 20th-century industrialization of agriculture has increased the amount of greenhouse gases emitted by the food system by an order of magnitude; chemical fertilizers (made from natural gas), pesticides (made from petroleum), farm machinery, modern food processing and packaging and transportation have together transformed a system that in 1940 produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil-fuel energy it used into one that now takes 10 calories of fossil-fuel energy to produce a single calorie of modern supermarket food. Put another way, when we eat from the industrial-food system, we are eating oil and spewing greenhouse gases.  

The reformatting of the payment system for physicians with the theoretical effectiveness of Accountable Care Organizations (ACO’s) will not work. It will only waste money. It will only dispirit the medical profession and diminish the effectiveness of a necessary workforce. Physicians are not the villains.

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

 

 

Permalink:

The Defects And Waste In Medicare

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

President Obama should listen to individual physicians and physician groups. They can tell him how to make Medicare more efficient.

President Obama is ignoring the power of innovation in competition. Government control leads to increased inefficiency.

Medicare wastes millions of dollars. The government should be focused on identifying and eliminating this waste.

It should not be concentrating on developing a bureaucratic infrastructure that will increase waste.

Taylorism of the early 20th century must yield to disintermediation of the 21st century.

President Obama is not listening to practicing physicians. Republicans and their leaders should be listening to practicing physicians. Republicans should be developing policies to fix the inefficiencies in the healthcare system right now.

I received this note from a group of physician leaders of large group practices throughout the country expressing some major concerns. These are a consensus of their top five concerns. Most practicing physicians and physician groups would agree. All have been frustrated by these issues.

“Stan, we polled a few of my colleagues about what would be our top issues/concerns as it relates to our current involvement with Medicare and Medicaid (CMS). We have summarized our discussions in a "5 top list".

1. “There is an inconsistency and difficulty in administration of local coverage policies versus national coverage policies and the costs associated with the variances.”

The administrative services for Medicare are outsourced to the healthcare insurance industry. Vendors in each state are autonomous. They have the ability to interpret and institute Medicare policy as they wish.

This inconsistency causes problems in tourist states for physicians and patients. There should be national policies and specific guidelines for policy implementation by carriers.

This simple fix would streamline the payment process for seniors and reduce physicians’ costs associated with claims payments. Complex payment appeals by both physicians and seniors would be reduced. The healthcare insurance industry’s staff costs and physicians’ staff costs for processing, reprocessing and adjudicating claims would be reduced. The wasteful administrative cost passed to Medicare would be saved.

2. “Oversight and management of Medicare Advantage Plans must be improved.”

There is a lack of appropriate oversight of management for the Medicare Advantage program. This defect impacts the cost of senior citizens’ medical care. Medicare Advantage does not implement the ever changing policies rapidly. There is no source for adjudication of complaints. Reimburse is delayed in some cases for a year.

Traditional Medicare carriers have no power to offer help. There needs to be more consistency and transparency on coverage policies for Medicare Advantage plans.

Medicare Advantage was created as a step to relieve the government of responsibility for Medicare. It shifts the entire responsibility from the government to the healthcare insurance industry.

The healthcare insurance industry charges the government a $3,000 premium above the cost of traditional Medicare to assume this responsibility. Seniors pay a lower premium for Medicare Advantage also. The healthcare insurance industry profit on Medicare Advantage is greater than traditional Medicare.

It is much easier for physicians to deal with traditional Medicare carriers than Medicare Advantage carriers. The amount of time spent by both providers and carriers in correcting payment problems would be reduced. This reduction in administrative waste would reduce the cost of medical care quickly.

3. “All stakeholders; physicians, hospital systems, insurance carriers and government should be held accountable for fraud and abuse.”

There is no mechanism to measure fraud and abuse by CMS. Physicians’ challenges to carriers are expensive, time consuming and minimally rewarding.

Reimbursement challenges will only increase when future rationing and control of medical care decisions are made by the new powerful commission boards and advisory panels. There is no government accountability or defense by physicians or patients for these new agencys’ decisions.

The government claims CMS saved $900 million by hiring external contractors to review provider compliance. Is this report published and validated?

Does CMS undergo similar audits of best business practices, administration staffing and other benchmarks to test its bureaucratic efficiency of operations?

4. Operational impact of government policy on physician practices must be considered. “

An example of this comment is e-prescribing. The government should make it as easy as possible for physicians to e-prescribe. Instead, e-prescribing is mandated for 2012. The government is creating punitive rules for physicians not in compliance with this mandate.

The government should understand that mandates do not work. Usually, the cost of enforcing mandates is greater than the cost of not having a mandate .

The government should make it voluntary, easy and profitable comply with a rule that should be part of every practice. E-prescribing will make practice more efficient.

More that 90% of physicians have a smartphone. Many physicians have IPADS. All have computers with internet connectivity.

If the government promoted an application like ScriptPad, the e-prescribing problem would be solved instantly at no cost to the government or the physicians.

Monetary incentives for compliance should be provided to physicians participating. There should be no penalty for non participation.

What does ScriptPad do?

ScriptPad allows physician to write e-prescriptions faster and safer than their current paper process. ScriptPad will eliminates prescription writing mistakes. It sends prescriptions directly to the patient’s pharmacy.

This I minute video demonstrates how it works.

The same can be done in the cloud for a fully functional electronic medical record. Instead the government is setting up a complicated subsidy program that falls short of the cost of an EHR. The government should provide a fully functional web based electronic medical record to physicians.

5. “ Medicare Part B fee schedule administration”

CMS changes Part B fee schedules several times a year. Physicians are not compensated for updating their billing systems. Physicians’ reimbursement is often delayed by the changes. Patients and physicians are irritated by these fee changes. The explanations of benefits are always changing for the same services.

"Has someone at CMS kept tabs on how much it costs CMS and the taxpayers for each fee schedule implementation/delay?"

This group of physician leaders estimated the government would save $108,984,375 million dollars a years if fee schedules were not changed so often. The calculation does not include cost savings for the physicians or any overhead for the healthcare insurance carrier the government has outsourced administrative services to.

Small changes such as those suggested above would save Medicare at least one half a billion dollars a year in waste.

I hope someone is listening.

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

Permalink:

Is This The Change We Want?

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

This week Senate Republicans demanded to hear from Dr. Don Berwick, the physician President Barack Obama appointed during the July 4th Senate recess to run the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Dr. Berwick took office last week.

“Republicans on the Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over the post, say that not holding a hearing with Berwick would “result in circumventing the open public review that should take place for a nomination of such importance” and “casts a shadow over his legitimacy and authority to serve as administrator during a critical time for CMS.”

President Obama did an end around on Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.). Senator Baucus said he was troubled that Dr. Berwick did not have a confirmation hearing.

Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee – and answered,”

After Dr. Berwick was installed in office, Senator Baucus said, “fully expects" new Medicare chief Donald Berwick to testify before the panel "in the near future."

 

Does President Obama have enough respect for the Senate or the American people to honor Senator Baucus’ request?

Why all the fuss?

There are two reasons:

1. “Dr. Berwick’s ideas on the design and purpose of the U.S. system of medicine aren’t merely about "change." They would be revolutionary.”

2. “One may agree with these views or not, but for the president to tell the American people they have to simply accept this through anything as flaccid as a recess appointment is beyond outrageous. It isn’t acceptable.”

 

Problem solving has three components;

a. Goals

b. Philosophy

c. Mechanisms.

All three must be kept in mind when evaluating decisions. There is no question that the mechanical aspects of healthcare and medical care must be changed in order to have a more cost effective, affordable system. I have discussed all of the areas of waste and abuse in the healthcare system previously. Many of these areas are not addressed in President Obama’s healthcare legislation.

Increasing the bureaucracy without developing a system of individual responsibility, individual choice, and individual accountability has not worked historically.

Yet Dr. Berwick’s many public statements reflect a new system that denies these freedoms and subjugates the individual’s freedom of choice to collective government decisions.

I am amazed at how few people are aware of the Dr. Berwick issue. I am again publishing his statements as Daniel Henniger did in order to bring more attention to the issue.

Excerpts are from past speeches and articles by Dr. Berwick:

"I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do."

"You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach."

"Please don’t put your faith in market forces. It’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can."

"Indeed, the Holy Grail of universal coverage in the United States may remain out of reach unless, through rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest, we can reduce per capita costs."

"It may therefore be necessary to set a legislative target for the growth of spending at 1.5 percentage points below currently projected increases and to grant the federal government the authority to reduce updates in Medicare fees if the target is exceeded."

"About 8% of GDP is plenty for ‘best known’ care."

"A progressive policy regime will control and rationalize financing—control supply."

"The unaided human mind, and the acts of the individual, cannot assure excellence. Health care is a system, and its performance is a systemic property."

"Health care is a common good—single payer, speaking and buying for the common good."

"And it’s important also to make health a human right because the main health determinants are not health care but sanitation, nutrition, housing, social justice, employment, and the like."

"Hence, those working in health care delivery may be faced with situations in which it seems that the best course is to manipulate the flawed system for the benefit of a specific patient or segment of the population, rather than to work to improve the delivery of care for all. Such manipulation produces more flaws, and the downward spiral continues."

"For-profit, entrepreneurial providers of medical imaging, renal dialysis, and outpatient surgery, for example, may find their business opportunities constrained."

"One over-demanded service is prevention: annual physicals, screening tests, and other measures that supposedly help catch diseases early."

"I would place a commitment to excellence—standardization to the best-known method—above clinician autonomy as a rule for care."

"Health care has taken a century to learn how badly we need the best of Frederick Taylor [the father of scientific management]. If we can’t standardize appropriate parts of our processes to absolute reliability, we cannot approach perfection."

"Young doctors and nurses should emerge from training understanding the values of standardization and the risks of too great an emphasis on individual autonomy."

"Political leaders in the Labour Government have become more enamored of the use of market forces and choice as an engine for change, rather than planned, centrally coordinated technical support."

"The U.K has people in charge of its health care—people with the clear duty and much of the authority to take on the challenge of changing the system as a whole. The U.S. does not."

Is this what the American people want? If so, that is America’s choice. Americans must be given that choice with a televised transparent confirmation hearing.

Barack Obama cannot deny Americans the understanding of Dr. Berwick’s positions. Thankfully, Senator Baucus has spoken out.

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