Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Results found: 95

Permalink:

A Bogus Attack For A Political End

Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

The New York Times continues to be a mouthpiece for the Obama administration. I suspect the editorial board thinks the only thing that will save the healthcare system in America is a government controlled single payer system.

This is President Obama’s goal even if he has to destroy the medical care system.

On September 20th, 2014 the front page top right hand column article in the Sunday New York Times was  After Surgery, Surprise $117,000 Medical Bill From Doctor He Didn’t Know appeared.

In the past the New York Times reserved this spot for the most important story of the day.

This story was the most important news story on Sunday September 200h 2014. The Times thought it was more important than a story about the economy, ISIS, the mid-term elections, Israel, Hamas or Iran’s nuclear ambitions. 

The story intended to inflame the New York Times’ readers so they would be angry at the medical profession.

The problem is that the story is peppered with misinformation and disinformation.

The New York Times writer used a typical Saul Alinsky tactic. Her goal was to prevent the opponents of the story from responding intelligently. 

Public opinion will be on her side because the New York Times is supposed to be a credible source.

Saul Alinsky’s rules instruct one to lie if necessary. The next step is to frighten consumers into thinking the system under attack cannot work.

Before his three-hour neck surgery for herniated disks in December, Peter Drier, 37, signed a pile of consent forms.”

Peter Drier did not read or modify the consent forms. He should have made the   hospital and his doctor liable for any unauthorized expenses, providers, or events.

Peter Drier is a bank technology manager. Banks have their own small fine print intended to keep consumers liable and uniformed.

Peter Drier should have modified the consent forms before he signed them. He can refuse to authorize treatment or payment to any provider or procedure performed in the hospital that was outside of his insurance network.

In Network providers have to agree to accept the negotiated fee. If they need an additional provider it must be a provider that will accept the negotiated fee of his insurance company.

A bank technology manager who had researched his insurance coverage, Mr. Drier was prepared when the bills started arriving: $56,000 from Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan, $4,300 from the anesthesiologist and even $133,000 from his orthopedist, who he knew would accept a fraction of that fee.

Every consumer should find out if their providers are in their insurance network .  

All of those prices are ridiculous retail prices. The real question is how much did his insurance company pay and how much is he liable for.

Peter Drier did not do a very good job in researching his insurance company’s coverage. A third party payer would never approve a $56,000 payment to the hospital for the proposed procedure.

Hospitals bill very high retail prices. They will negotiate a price that is 50-90

5 lower than the retail fee.

 

The author, ELISABETH ROSENTHAL, has a list of recent articles criticizing the healthcare system about exorbitant retail pricing. 

  • COLONOSCOPY: Colonoscopies Explain Why U.S. Leads the World in Health Expenditures
  • PREGNANCY: American Way Of Birth, Costliest In The World
  • JOINT REPLACEMENT: In Need Of A New Hip, But Priced Out of the US Market
  • HOSPITAL PRICES SOAR: A Stitch Tops $5000

All of these articles criticize the retail price providers charge. They do not tell the reader what the providers receive as reimbursement by the government or the healthcare insurance company.

Consumers are the victims of the constant effort to try to reduce healthcare costs and stick consumers with the bill.

Obamacare has driven the healthcare insurance industry to raise premiums and decrease coverage in order to cover their supposed actuarial risk.

The decreased reimbursement by the healthcare insurance industry has driven providers to increase their fees for service. The hope is to occasionally catch a consumer who is uninsured and liable for the fee.

The uninsured consumer cannot afford the fee and therefore will not pay the fee. The provider then has to sue the consumer to collect whatever they can. The cost of the suit is not profitable for the provider. He usually writes off a loss.

President Obama and the government control advocates will use the resulting chaos in the marketplace to prove that a free market for healthcare system does not work. Therefore the country needs a government controlled single party payer system.

The problem with these horror articles is they frighten consumers. They do not address the reason that the healthcare industry costs $2.7 trillion dollars a year.  

The chaos in the marketplace is the result of the government (Obamacare) involvement into the free market system.

I am also not sure if the $2.7 trillion dollars is from retail charges or negotiated payments. The answer to the question is totally opaque.

The reasons for the increasing costs are many.

Americans are becoming less healthy because they are not being responsible for their health. It is hard to maintain weight when almost every restaurants main dish is higher than their daily caloric allotment. 

470 cal 9 24 2014

1200 cal 9 24 2014 jpg

The result is an obesity epidemic. Over 50% of Americans are Obese.

Obese individuals have a 40% increased incidence of chronic disease.

Eighty percent of the healthcare dollars spent are spent on treating chronic diseases and the complications of those chronic diseases.  

Controlling a chronic diseases can decrease the complication rate of those diseases by at least 50%.  

If we ran the numbers we could reduce the healthcare costs below one trillion dollars a year.

Everyone complains about the grotesque profits the healthcare insurance companies make. Everyone understands the profits result from the inflated bureaucracies and double payments made to segments of the bureaucracy.

If one insurance company wanted to be competitive it would lower its premiums and overhead. All the other insurance companies would do the same to stay competitive.

One has only to look at the cell phone industry. Not only has the cost of the cell phones been lowered but monthly charges are continually decreasing.

One should also look at what ITunes did to the music industry.

Look at what Dr. Keith Smith’s surgical center model is doing to the local hospitals’ costs for surgery in Oklahoma City. They are falling precipitously.

The government should stop feeding the public disinformation leading to confusion of the facts..

President Obama's goal is to destroy the medical system so that consumers will believe the only thing that will work is a government controlled single party system.

Single payer systems throughout the world have proven to be unsustainable.

The healthcare system is dysfunctional. Medical care has been distorted at the consumers’ expense and for the profit of the profit of the healthcare industry.

America has to become innovative and build a healthcare system to the advantage of the consumer.

The solution 

 Is about consumers becoming aware.

 Is about leadership.

 Is about innovation.

 Is about consumers being responsible for their health and their healthcare dollars.    

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



Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

 

Permalink:

The Growth Of Concierge Medicine

 Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

In the accelerated chaos Obamacare has created for both patients and physicians an increasing number are trying to find ways to maintain their freedom of choice. Patients are recognizing that Obamacare is causing a commoditizing of healthcare and the destruction of the Patient/Physician relationship.

Patients and physicians yearn to have a good Patient/Physician relationship.

Physicians love the practice of medicine but they hate the burden being imposed on them.,

  1. Increased government regulations and requirements,
  2. Increased paper work to prove every clinical decision they make on the patient’s behalf.
  3. The restrictions on their use of clinical judgment.
  4. The increased overhead to comply with regulations of both the government and the private insurance plans.
  5. The decreasing reimbursement.
  6. The lack of malpractice reform.
  7. The pressure on primary care physicians to see 30-50 patients a day to cover overhead resulting from decreased reimbursement.
  8. The inability to spend more time with patients because of this patient volume pressure.
  9. The inability to get to know their patient better because of time constraints.

      10. Their inability for physicians to have empathy for patients after they see the tenth patient   because of burnout.

       11. Their inability to develop a viable patient/physician relationship.

       12. Spending at least three hours weekly dealing with insurance plans preauthorization.

       13. Their clerical staff and nursing staff spending at least fifteen hours weekly obtaining preauthorization from the insurance company or government before providing patient care.

        14.Their ability to keep up and comply with all the bureaucratic requlations and requirements.

An AMA survey of 2,400 primary care physicians believe private insurers and government insurers have excessive requirements for preauthorization for tests, procedures, and medications.  

  • More than one out of three have a rejection rate of 20 percent for first-time preauthorization on tests and procedures,
  • More than half of physicians have a 20 percent rejection rate on prescriptions.
  • About one half of physicians have difficulty obtaining preauthorization from insurance plans.
  • About two out of three wait several days for permission.
  • About the same proportion report difficulty in determining which tests, procedures and medications require preauthorization.

These are just a few of the reasons the enjoyment has been taken of the practice of medicine. Many physicians have said I am finished dealing with all these rules and regulations, the government and the private insurance industry.

Many Primary Care Physicians are converting their medical practices to Concierge Medical Practices.

Proponents say concierge care is a revolt against the modern health care system where diminishing Medicare and insurance payments have forced doctors to herd dozens of sick patients through their offices in five-minute increments every day.”

What is concierge medicine?

Concierge medicine is a relationship between a patient and a primary care physician in which the patient pays an annual fee or retainer. This may or may not be in addition to other charges depending on the business model being used and the retainer charged.

The up front retainer allows physicians to decrease full time staff to a minimum. It decreases the complexity of practicing medicine. Physicians do not deal with insurance companies or the government. They only deal with their patients. This permits physicians to decrease the number of patients they see a day and increase time spent with and relating to patients.

Doctors who charge an annual fee to patients in exchange for customized care including house calls are drawing the ire of some health insurance companies.”

Concierge medicine is a way of taking first dollar coverage away from the healthcare insurance industry and putting control of care in patients’ hands. It prevents the insurance companies from feeling they own physicians and patients.

If the Patient/Physician relationship is not important too many large healthcare companies. Physician are simply one provider among many such as nurse practitioners, physicians assistants, social workers and pharmacists.

All these healthcare companies are interested in is maximizing their profits from this 2.7 trillion dollar business.

Concierge medicine would not be growing by leaps and bonds if this companies concentrated on the welfare of consumers.

Both physicians and patients are feed up with the development of central control of the healthcare system.

All of us remember President Obama’s lie, “If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor with Obamacare.”

Obamacare was passed because of this lie.

The concierge retainer fees can vary from $500 to $38,000 dollars per year. Concierge medicine will create a two tier Healthcare System. I disagree with a two tier system!

It is occurring because we have a dysfunctional healthcare system. Obamacare is making the healthcare system more dysfunctional.

The healthcare system is not servicing either patients or physicians well. Each is searching for an alternative before Obamacare and the entire healthcare system collapses under it own weight.  

Patients yearn for a positive Patient/Physician relationship. As more physicians are adopting the concierge business model patients are signing up to the surprise of the government and the healthcare insurance industry.

These stakeholders have underestimated the value of the Patient/Physician relationship.

Maybe the trend will wake up the government and the healthcare insurance industry and fix the things that are broken.

Obamacare is not doing it! It is making things worse.

Maybe these two stakeholders will realize that they do not own the physicians or patients. Any attempt to own them is futile. It is not in the American culture being to be enslaved.

The answer is not fancy information systems that do not work perfectly. It is not by creating expert panels to tell physicians what they can do. It is not these panels telling patients the care they can have. Our healthcare system is dysfunctional. The system does not evaluate the quality of care effectively.

All one has to do is look at the VA system’s problems. The VA system’s problems are a disgrace. It should also be a warning about the future of Obamacare.

Obamacare and its bureaucracies are going to create another VA system for all Americans.

The answer is to teach consumers what is good treatment and what is not good treatment. It is to help consumers evaluate their physicians. Price transparency is a good beginning in order to get the stakeholders to start competing.

Tort reform is another good start.

Government could help by teaching consumers to ask the right questions.

It should start realizing that we have to have a consumer driven patient centric system where patients are responsible for their health and healthcare dollars.

The problems in the healthcare system can be solved with a consumer driven healthcare system using my ideal medical saving account.

The public health problems are a different issue. There are three diseases we can prevent. They are obesity, alcoholism and drug addiction. The government must deal with these diseases on an educational and social level.

The government has not done a very good job with any of these three diseases. The prevention of these diseases is a public health problem.

It should not be mixed up with individual medical care. Obamacare does with the causes of these diseases or the environmental cures.

Obamacare is another unsustainable entitlement program. The government should not be creating another unsustainable entitlement program.

It should be creating a program that promotes individual responsibility for health, healthcare, and healthcare dollars.  

Hopefully the growth of concierge medicine will be a wake up call to a misguided Obama administration wanting top down control of the healthcare system.

They must realize that the Patient/Physician relationship is sacred to cost effective medical care.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink:

The Wrong View Of The Right Problem

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

Most of the stakeholders in the healthcare industry are not stupid. Most understand the issues very well.

The problem is they all look at the same problem from the prism of their own vested interest. Each government action causes these stakeholders to react in their vested interest.

Each reaction causes a compensatory reaction from the other stakeholders, which in turn causes another chain of reactions.

The healthcare system becomes further twisted into a tighter non-functioning hairball that is more expensive than previously.

Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini was the keynote speaker at HIMSS14. His analysis was correct He said,

“Antiquated systems and out-of-control healthcare costs in the United States are not sustainable.”

He went on to say the healthcare system is plagued by inefficiency and waste.

“ We can’t afford it. It’s unsustainable.”

Employees are now paying 41 percent of their healthcare dollars to the healthcare insurance industry. It includes premium costs, deductibles, and copays.

These costs consume much of employees’ disposable income.  Mark Bertolini predicts that employees will be paying 50% in 5 years as insurance premiums increase.

Mark Bertolini is really saying consumers will stop buying insurance soon. The result will be a decrease in Aetna’s profit.

Who is at fault?

All the stakeholders are at fault. Consumers are at fault for not taking care of themselves. The incidence of the onset of all chronic diseases increases with the incidence of obesity.

When there is an increase in chronic disease there is an increase in the complications of chronic diseases.

Eighty percent of the money spent on treating that chronic disease is spent on treating the complications of that chronic disease.

Patients must manage their chronic diseases under their physicians’ direction. The patient lives with that disease 24/7.

Patients must be taught to be the “Professor of Their Disease” so that they do not get a complication of that disease.

Patients must also be given financial incentives to become the manager of their disease. This incentive can be developed in many ways.

Reimbursement for education is not routine. There is little financial incentive for physicians to set up educational systems.

Hospitals at one time set up educational systems for chronic disease. They found them a financial burden and discontinued them.  The educational systems did not distinguish one hospital from another.

The educational systems were not set up correctly. They should have been set up as an extension of the patient’s physician’s care.

I believe the healthcare insurance industry really wants to lower costs while retaining the profit margins enjoyed in the pre and post Obamacare era.

Aetna’s Bertolini got it right. “We can’t afford it.”

“If we really want to take care of people, we should align incentives around keeping them healthy.”

He is right. His problem is he thinks he controls patients and patient care.

The government thinks it controls patients.

Physicians know they do not control their patients’ behavior.

Neither the healthcare industry and government nor physicians controls patients.

Patients control themselves.

Bertolini said. "Recent data compiled by Aetna found that the top 5 percent of Medicare patients consumed 43 percent of Medicare dollars. They spent on average $108,000 a year per person."

The demographics of these patients disease including past and present lifestyle are not discussed in the data mining survey. This information would be helpful to know the true meaning of this data.

He then concludes, “Let’s not keep sending these people around with 25 different prescription and all these different doctors and hospitals.

Who is the stakeholder sending patients to all the different hospitals and giving all the different prescriptions.

Physicians, of course!

Therefore, let us penalize physicians for spending all this money on our patients.

This is the wrong way to look at the problem.

If there was meaningful Tort Reform, physicians wouldn’t be doing so much unnecessary testing and treating to avoid missing something that could result in a malpractice suit.

If there were meaningful incentives for patients to be responsible for themselves people would stay healthy.

Patients should be responsible for their healthcare dollars not the government or the insurance industry.

People should also be rewarded if they stay healthy just as the auto insurance industry rewards drivers who do not have an accident.

If the government made a meaningful effort to change our eating habits through meaningful education much illness and medical costs would be reduced.

The center of the new healthcare system should be the patients. It should be a consumer driven system.
 

As soon as all the secondary stakeholders focus on that fact and start helping instead of penalizing patients and their physicians, the cost of the healthcare system will come down.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

The Obamacare Alternative That Would Work!

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Some have complained that "My Ideal Medical Savings Account" cannot work. I have communicated with some of these people who made this and similar comments. I discovered two common themes to their comments.

The first theme was that people are too dumb to take care of themselves and make their own medical decisions.

The government must make the healthcare decisions for them.

The second was people would not handle their healthcare dollars appropriately if they were given the money.

These people might be talking about 5% per of the population who will be a burden to society no matter what healthcare system is put into place.

Why burden the other 95% of the population who want to be responsible for their health and healthcare dollars if they were given the chance?

The chance given has to include complete transparency, equal tax treatment, and adequate education to use their healthcare dollars wisely to made wise medical care decisions.

The week Tammy Bruce wrote an article in the Washington Times entitled, “Obamacare Isn’t A Train Wreck, It’s A Cancer.”

She explains how it is metastasizing throughout our economy and culture. It will destroy our society.

It is clear me that people commenting did not read my blog “My Ideal Medical Savings Account Is Democratic” carefully.

I decided to republish that blog at this time when it appears that Obamacare is failing on every level as I had predicted.

My hope is people will read the blog more carefully this time and understand it as an alternative to the impending disaster of Obamacare. 

My Ideal Medical Savings Account Is Democratic!

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

A reader sent this comment; “My Ideal Medical Savings Account (MSA) was not democratic and leads to restriction of medical care for the less fortunate.'

This comment is totally incorrect. I suspect the comment came from a person who has “an entitlements are good mentality.”

I believe that incentives are good. They lead to innovation. Innovation leads to better ideas.

Healthcare entitlement leads to ever increasing costs, stagnation, restrictions on freedom of choice and a decrease in access to care.

I have written extensively about the virtues of My Ideal Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). They are different than Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

HSAs put money not spent in a trust for future healthcare expenses. MSAs take the money out of play for healthcare expenses. MSAs provide a trust fund for the consumer’s retirement.

MSAs provide added incentives over HSAs to obtain and maintain good health.  Obesity is a major factor in the onset of chronic diseases. Consumers must be motivated to avoid obesity to maintain good health. MSAs can provide that incentive.

The MSA’s can replace every form of health insurance at a reduced cost. It limits the risk to the healthcare insurance industry while providing consumers with choice.

This would result in competition among healthcare providers. Competition would bring down the cost of healthcare.

Some people might not like MSA’s because they are liberating. They provide consumers of healthcare with freedom of choice. They also give consumers the opportunity to be responsible for their healthcare dollars while providing them with incentives to take care of their health.

MSAs could be used for private insurance purchasers, group insurance plans, employer self-insurance plans, State Funded self-insurance plans and Medicare and Medicaid.

In each case the funding source is different. The cost of the high deductible insurance is low because the risk of spending $6,000 for most people is low. 

If it were a $6,000 deductible MSA, the first $6,000 would be placed in a trust for the consumer. Whatever they did not spend would go into a retirement trust.  If they spent over $6,000 they would have first dollar healthcare insurance coverage. Their trust would obviously receive no money that year.

The incentive would be for consumers to take care of their health so they do not get sick and end up in an expensive emergency room.

If a person had a chronic illness such as asthma, Diabetes, or health disease with a tendency to congestive heart failure and ended up in the emergency room they would use up their $6,000.

If they took care of themselves by spending $3,000 of their $6,000 trust their funding source could afford to give their trust a $1500 reward. The benefit to the funding source is it saved money by the consumer not being admitted to the hospital. The patient stayed healthy and was more productive.

President Obama does not want to try this out. He wants consumers and businesses to be dependent of the central government for everything.

MSAs would lead to consumer independence from central government control of our healthcare. MSAs would put all consumers at whatever socioeconomic level in charge of their own destiny.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

Surprises For Physicians Coming With In Health Insurance Exchanges

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP, MACE

 Two
important components of Obamacare are Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) and
Health Insurance Exchanges (HIEs).


The
adoption of both by medical communities and the states has been slow for good
reason.

I have
discussed the difficulties of setting up and the executing effective Accountable
Care Organizations
.

Some hospital systems are trying to set up ACO’s. These hospital systems
are buying up physicians’ practices and trying to develop integrated care
organizations.

The hospital systems are buying the physicians’ intellectual property and
surgical skills sets. It will not work once physicians realize what happened.

The relationship between community hospital systems and practicing
physicians had always been tense. Physicians do not trust hospitals and hospitals
do not trust physicians.

Some physician groups are trying to develop their own ACOs. They are trying
to convert hospital systems from being providers of patient care to vendors for
their physician ACO.

If there are two hospitals in a community or town the hospital systems
might become competitive.

The huge problem for physicians is the assuming of risk. If healthcare
insurance companies cannot manage risk, why would physicians think they can
manage risk?

 A variable that cannot be controlled
in managing risk are patients. With all the obesity and the increase in
diabetes mellitus it seems patients do not have the incentives to manage their
own risks.

 Patients and physicians must be provided with appropriate financial
incentives if there is the slightest chance of managing risk and decreasing the
cost of healthcare.

 The adoption of ACOs has been slower than the Obama administration has anticipated.
  

 Adoption
of the Health Insurance Exchanges has been slow by states. Some states
recognize the financial risk the Obama administration is trying to force on
them.

This
risk is ever present even if the federal government is going to pay the entire
bill for the first three years.

As soon as physicians realize
the risk the Health Insurance Exchanges are going to impose on them, they will
not be willing participate.

These risks become more
apparent will each succeeding release of regulation.

Kathleen Sebelius said it two
weeks ago when she said there would be plenty of surprises ahead for physicians.

Health
and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who told a gathering a few
weeks ago at the Harvard School of Public Health that she has been
"surprised" by the political wrangling caused so far by Obamacare,
there are likely to be plenty of surprises ahead.”

Physicians could face dramatic
financial challenges for treating patients who receive health coverage through
the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) Health Insurance Exchanges starting next year.

Insurance companies will not
process claims on patients who haven't paid their premiums in 3 months
, leaving
doctors on the hook to recoup payment directly from the patients.”

Obamacare provides a 3-month grace
period to individuals who haven't paid their premiums for insurance purchased
through the Health Insurance Exchanges.

This provision will prove to be a
problem for physicians.

In Obamacare patients who fail to
pay their premium are free to sign up for another plan provided by the Health Insurance
Exchange.  

They can also start seeing another
physician without the insurance company or new physicians being aware of the
patient’s delinquent premium record.

"Why would a doctor sign up to treat these patients] if
they're going to be completely at risk and have to collect from the patient
directly for their care?"  "This
is a really bad provision in the bill, and we've got to get it fixed."


Under traditional insurance provided
by employers, the plan is still liable for paying doctors even if the patient
or employer hasn't paid their premiums,

Under the health insurance exchange
the individual is responsible for their monthly premium. If the patients
discontinue payment of their premium the healthcare insurer is not obligated to
pay the physician for the care provided.

Most of the time patients have stopped
paying premiums because they cannot afford them. Patients buying healthcare
insurance from the Health Insurance Exchanges are lower income producing
patients. 

 The
expected annual, out-of-pocket cost for an individual is estimated to be around
$6,400 and $12,800 for a family. This is not an insignificant expense for low
wage earners.

Recent premium estimates indicate
that the premium will be higher. This could be one of the surprises Kathleen
Sibelius is referring to.

Another potential shortcoming of the
Health Insurance Exchange is the reimbursement rates provided to physicians.
The Obama administration believes Medicaid rates are sufficient.

I wonder if any of President Obama’s
healthcare policy wonks ever questioned why so many physicians do not accept
Medicaid.

The answer is simple. The
reimbursement rate is less than the physicians fixed overhead to see the patient.

Medicaid physicians are driven to
see many patients a day to try to make a living.

It would be difficult maintaining a
physician patient relationship and a high quality of care seeing over 100
patients a day.

When their overproduction is
discovered these physicians are investigated for fraudulent practices.

 The rates the healthcare insurance industry
will pay physicians will not be set until late summer.

The big provider groups are negotiating with plans on their
payments. Small groups will only get a "take it or leave it" contract
from the health plans.

It seems obvious that fewer
physicians will sign up to accept patients receiving coverage through the
Health Insurance Exchanges once physicians understand what Obamacare is doing.

 This will result in a further physician
shortage.

 The simple question is what is Obamacare
trying to do to the healthcare system?

 Is Obamacare trying to destroy the
healthcare system?

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

Permalink:

How Are Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) Doing?

Stanley Feld M.D.,
FACP, MACE

 In a word the formation
of Accountable Care Organizations is doing poorly.

If one believes the CMS
press releases one would believe the formation of ACOs is doing well.

In the past, I have gone
into great detail on why I believe Accountable Care Organizations will fail.

I believe physicians and
hospital systems should be accountable for outcomes but only the outcomes they
can control.

They should not be
accountable for outcomes they cannot control.

ACOs are really HMOs on
steroids.
Risk is transferred from the government to the healthcare providers.

HMOs failed in the 1980’s
and 1990’s because physicians and hospital systems realized that they could not
evaluate risk or manage risk.

It is impossible for
providers (physicians or hospital systems) to control patients’ behavior in
adhering to treatment for their disease.

It is almost impossible for
the government to commoditize reimbursement accurately for diseases unless the
government can weigh the risk of poor disease outcomes.

No one has figured out
the way to accurately risk weight the outcome of a patient’s disease and
treatment.

CMS believes by
increasing the number of cod
es in ICD-10  to 68,000 codes vs. ICM-9 18,00 codes, the old coding system, the
government will be able to weigh risk leading to accurate cost assessment.

I believe this is a
fantasy of healthcare policy wonks working for the Obama administration.

Many physician groups
and hospital systems believe they will lose money taking on these risks. These
are the groups that are holding back and not forming ACOs.

It is the reason the
Mayo Clinic and the Cleveland Clinic have refused to form ACOs.

Nevertheless on January 1st CMS proudly announced that
it has nearly doubled the number of ACO programs in the country by adding 106
new ACOs to the existing 148 programs for a total of 254 programs to date
.

The CMS announced its latest and
largest round of accountable care organizations
 under the Medicare
shared-savings program.

I would not be as proud as CMS is to applaud this level of
participation in the ACO program. ACOs are the keystone of Obamacare.

Complete national participation is supposed to occur by January
2014.

There are a total of 254 ACO’s signed up in 50 states or 5.08 ACO’s
per state.  There are many more potential
ACOs per state than 5.08 per state.

CMS said half of ACOs are physician-led and
care for less than 10,000 Medicare enrollees.” 

This is not a good sign.
The success of the ACO program is defined as shifting the risk of medical care to
hospital systems and physicians.

What is the problem?

The problem is obvious.
The definition of insurance is,

“Insurance is the
equitable transfer of the risk of a loss
, from one entity to another in
exchange for payment. It is a form of
risk management
primarily used to
hedge against the
risk of a contingent, uncertain loss.”

“An insurer, or insurance carrier, is a company selling the
insurance; the insured, or policyholder, is the person or entity buying the
insurance policy. The amount to be charged for a certain amount of insurance
coverage is called the premium.

Risk management,
the practice of
appraising and controlling risk, has evolved as a discrete field of
study and practice.”

Risk management is far
from an exact science. Risk management depends on a large number of people
paying premiums who are not at risk for disease.

Obamacare’s goal is to
have all the low risk consumers pay for the higher risk consumers.

However, President Obama
has provided low risk consumers an out. The penalty for not participating is
modest compare to the cost of the insurance. If a low risk consumer gets sick
he can immediately join the health insurance exchange program without
restrictions.

The increased cost of
illness is compounded when a large number of patients have chronic diseases.

A contributing factor to
developing chronic disease is obesity.

America has a national
obesity epidemic.

Patients with Diabetes
Mellitus are vulnerable to multiple diseases such as hypertension,
hyperlipidemia, kidney disease, eye disease and vascular disease.

Each might be at a
different stage of progression. The risk for costly complications is different
for each at each stage of disease progression.

The diabetic might or
might not adhere to the treatment regime outlined. It is difficult to risk
weight these patients. It is risky to take the responsibility for the medical
care outcomes for these patients.

In reality the principle
risk managers are consumers.

Healthcare policy
experts have not practiced medicine. They either do not understand these risks
or they want to place the risk with physicians and hospital systems and provide
undervalued reward.

Many medical outcomes are
dependent on patient responsibility for managing their own risk. Patients must
participate in their own care to receive maximum benefit and the best medical outcomes.

Patients must become
professors of their disease.

 

There are many reasons ACOs will fail

1. ACOs
do not empower consumers to be responsible for their own medical care. 
Healthcare should be consumer driven with consumers controlling their healthcare
dollars. They will then make informed choices about their care and insurance
coverage.

2. ACOs create artificial
incentives to improve quality medical care and provider performance.

3.  Consumer driven healthcare creates real
incentives to promote price competition by physicians and hospital systems. True
competitors will constantly work to improve their products, attract
consumers, and ultimately increase market share.  

In a systems of ACOs consumers do
not play a role in stimulating completion. Consumers are passive recipients of
treatment from an assigned ACO.

4. Most physicians are reluctant
to assume accountability for patient outcomes.  Physicians recognize that
most medical outcomes are directly under consumers behavioral control.

5.  ACOs structure does not include consumers’
incentive to be responsible or accountable for their own medical care.

 ACOs undermine any attempt to create a truly
accountable healthcare system that can drive down medical costs.

6. ACOs do not encourage provider
accountability.  ACO’s shared savings incentive
does not seem to be adequate for the risk assumption.  

 Providers will continue to
be paid for each service they perform until the government provided
funds run out for that ACO.

7.  There are also grave uncertainties and
practical complications of distributing government funds and savings if any
between the hospital system and physicians on the hospital systems staff.

 8. ACOs create an
unfair competitive advantage for large organizations that are hospital system centric.
Eligibility requirements are vague and ambiguous. The eligibility
requirements suggest that larger organizations have an unspoken
eligibility advantage.

 9.  This is the reason
hospital systems are trying to form ACOs. Hospital systems think they will make
money. I believe hospital systems will lose money. The government will have to
supplement payment for hospital systems to stay afloat.

10. When hospital systems lose
money they will fight with their staff physicians over the distribution of
government reimbursement.

 The cost of hospital services will then
skyrocket further. Consumers will be the losers.

11. Groups of independent
practitioners as well as other types of small and mid-sized practices may
lack the infrastructure, information technology facilities, or other resources
needed to qualify for ACO eligibility.

12.  They will be forced to join hospital systems.
Hospital systems have a long history of taking advantage of physicians
skills and intellectual property.

 Tension between hospital systems and staff
physicians will be created. Hospital systems’ ACOs will crumble. The cost of
medical care will continue to increase further.

These are just a few of the reasons ACO’s will fail.

No matter how hard CMS tries to change the narrative
these are some of the reasons explaining the lack of hospital and physician participation
to this point.

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

Permalink:

The Future State Business Model For Repairing the Healthcare System

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Obamacare is going to lead to the demise of both the healthcare system and the medical care system in the United States. America is at a critical turn in 2012.  The evidence for the collapse is presented in the following links.

The business model for a successful repair of both the healthcre system and the medical care system are outline on the next slide.


Slide14

A consumer driven healthcare system is critcal to a successful repair of the healthcare system. Read this link to understand the full meaning and implications of a consumer driven healthcare system.

Consumers must drive the systems by being responsible for their own healthcare decisions and own their healthcare dollars even if they are subsidized by the government.

Another critcal element in business model for the future state is effective tort reform. Ideally defensive medical testing  has to be eliminated completely. Defensive medical costs the healthcare system between $300-500 billion dollars a year

A summary of the misalign insentives must be understood and examine . There is a way to align all the primary and secondary stakeholders incentives. It must be agreed too that consumers are the primary stakeholders and physicians are next. Most of the control and power in the system has shifted to the secondary stakeholder namely the government, the hospital systems and mostly the healthcare insurance industry.

The government must understand that the only way to reduce cost is to shift the responsibility of controlling costs from the government to consumers.

Consumer must be the leader of their healthcare team.

Consumers must be responsible for health and healthcare dollars.

Consumers must have effective financial incentives to become medically responsible to themselves. It is clear with the incidence of obesity, the increases in smoking and drug addictions, hearth attacks, and strokes from high blood pressure that the need to attain good health is not enough incentive.

My ideal Medical Saving Accounts are an excellent way of providing financial incentives to achieve good health in a consumer driven system. The achievement of good health will drive down the costs to the healthcare system. The incidence of costly complications of disease will be reduced.

My ideal Electronic Medical Record is an important innovation. It is inexpensive to physicians. The data belongs to patients and their physicians and set up in a way that it is not punitive to physicians. It should be a fully functional EMR.

All physicians know that medical care decisions making and judging the quality of medical care by electronic data is faulty. All the EMR's are expensive. They also put physicians in a vulnerable position to be judged by faulty data. My Ideal EMR helps physicians track their patients and improve their medical communications and care. 

It is important that consumer become responsible for their own Personal Medical Record. The ideal EMR permits patients to download their records with their tests to their own computer or flash drive. Consumers should carry their medical records at all times in case of emergency. 

Social Networking is the key to a consumer driven healthcare system. The possibilities are compelling.

Improved communication between patients and physicians will be driven by a consumer driven healthcare system connected to social networking. The motivations is financial when consumers own their healthcare dollars.

Education via the Internet must be an extension of physician care.

Government's Educational Responsibility:

Teach consumers to become intelligent healthcare consumers

Government must develop a program to effectively combat obesity. There must be a change in the food industry and farm policy.

Price Transparency

Price Controls Do Not Work.

Eliminate Medical Monopolies

Patient must learn to be and educated and responsible healthcare consumer.

There must be a decrease in medical entitlement programs. Consumers must have skin in the game in order to be educated and responsible consumers. Consumers need to be a financial risk.

This is the outline of the future state business model. The readers should click on each link to read the details of each bullet point.

This business model will enable America to have an affordable healthcare system for all which will become sustainable.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

Permalink:

There Is A Way To Fix The Healthcare System!!

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

The healthcare system cannot be fixed using a
broken business model.

It can only be fixed by changing the business
model to a consumer driven business model that would include personal
responsibility and individual freedom of choice.

President Obama believes the healthcare system
can be fixed by a single party payer system run by the government.

I do not believe the government has run things
very well. Many examples come to mind in many areas. Two recent examples are
the Fast and Furious scandal and the lack of security for the murdered ambassador
in Benghsi Lybia.

When things go bad with government policy it is
difficult to discover the reasons. I believe consumers are very hesitant to
trust the government to make their healthcare decisions for them. On the other
hand consumers would be happy to allow the government and taxpayers to pay for
their medical costs.

A cultural shift in the healthcare system must
occur.  The shift must be toward
individual responsibility. Consumers must be responsible for their health and
their healthcare dollars if Americans are to be healthier and the cost of
healthcare decreased. The government must allow and encourage the introduction
of innovative forms of healthcare insurance.

The role of government must be to educate
consumers maintain health and to be smart purchasers of healthcare insurance.
Government should make the rules so secondary stakeholder cannot take advantage
of the primary stakeholders  (consumers)
and then get out of the way.

Government should help those who are less well
off with subsidies and equal access to medical care. Consumers must be
financially incentivized to take responsibility for their health or healthcare
dollars. They must not be penalized if they do not take responsibility for
their health and healthcare dollars.

I presented a new healthcare business model a
few months ago. It deserves to be restated.

 
Slide03

This is the way the healthcare system looks
today.

 
Slide04

Since 1965, as a result of government intervention,
healthcare costs have escalated. This escalation has been the resulted of
increasing government intervention over the years. The path to accelerated
collapse of the healthcare system has started.

The result has been destruction of the patient-physicians
relationship. Effective medical care has been disrupted along with the
impersonal fragmentation of care.

 
Slide08

 
Slide09
All of the underlined headings represent links
to articles that explain these problems. I will publish functional links in the
next blog.

President Obama’s goal is to have a single
party payer healthcare system. He believes this is the only way to an efficient
system.

He realizes he cannot achieve this goal immediately.
He must do it one step at a time.

The methodology he is using will not work.  He is imposing an accountable care
organizations model onto hospital systems and large physician practices. He
plans to pay one fee for certain diseases based on financial outcomes.

The fee is to be divided between the
stakeholders. President Obama wants to collect data to evaluate and direct
physicians and hospital systems care.

It sounds good but it will not work because he
will encounter physician resistance.

He wants to make cost effective judgments about
patients care without giving patients the right to make their own decisions.

It is going to very difficult to divide the
shrinking pot of money between physicians and hospital systems.

President Obama refuses to admit that the
government outsources the administrative services to the healthcare insurance
industry. The healthcare insurance industry’s fee for this service is about 40%
of the healthcare dollar.

In a recent debate he again stated that CMS’s
overhead is very low at 2.5%

President Obama’s ACA (Obamacare) is proceeding
with the same business model that has failed except he wants complete control
and no competition. If the U.S. continues with the same business model the total
collapse of the healthcare system will accelerate.

Slide10

The healthcare system is at a critical turn.
The disadvantages of President Obama’s healthcare reform act are obvious. The present
healthcare systems model has lead to all of the disadvantages on the above list.

It is going to take many years to get an
accountable care organization to effectively function if at all. It will take
many years to have a fully functional EMR installed in every hospital system
and physician’s office. If something is not done to correct the business model
we will experience total collapse of the healthcare system.

Slide11

 

Two things have to happen to change course. The
business model has to change to transfer power from the government to the
consumer.

Slide14

The healthcare system is good at curing
infectious disease and replacing kidneys, lungs, livers or hearts.

The big question is, “how does the healthcare
system prevent disease from occurring?”

The greatest expense is diseases that can be
prevented such as diabetes mellitus and heart disease. The root causes are not
preventable yet because they are genetic. The expression of the diseases and
its resultant and costly complications can be prevented.

Obesity causes the expression of these diseases.
The avoidance of obesity requires a drastic change in society’s food industry
and culture.

Americans have been programed over time to eat
more calories and do less activity. There is no quick fix for obesity. People
must eat less and be more active in order to lose weight.

The government has not devoted adequate
resources for education and innovation to change this culture.

Mayor Bloomberg had the right idea by
decreasing the size of the soda pop being sold in N.Y.C. but his approach is
wrong.

He must use education and provide real incentives.
He is trying to legislate behavior. It has never worked in the past.

Americans’ attitude toward food must change by creating
hype for decreasing intake and increasing exercise tied to financial
incentives. Penalties do not work. Incentives and freedom to choose does work.

This is the main problem with President Obama’s
business plan for the healthcare system. He is imposing his will on the
consumers, hospital systems and physicians.

It will not work. It must stop now because it
is unsustainable for taxpayers.

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

Please have a friend subscribe

 

Permalink:

My Ideal Medical Savings Account Is Democratic!

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

A reader sent this comment; “My Ideal Medical Savings Account (MSA) “was not democratic and leads to restriction of medical care for the less fortunate.'

This comment is totally incorrect. I suspect the comment came from a person who has “an entitlements are good mentality.”

I believe that incentives are good. They lead to innovation. Innovation leads to better ideas.

Healthcare entitlement leads to ever increasing costs, stagnation, restrictions on freedom of choice and a decrease in access to care.

I have written extensively about the virtues of My Ideal Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs). They are different than Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

HSAs put money not spent in a trust for future healthcare expenses. MSAs take the money out of play for healthcare expenses. MSAs provide a trust fund for the consumer’s retirement.

MSAs provide added incentives over HSAs to obtain and maintain good health.  Obesity is a major factor in the onset of chronic diseases. Consumers must be motivated to avoid obesity to maintain good health. MSAs can provide that incentive.

The MSA’s can replace every form of health insurance at a reduced cost. It limits the risk to the healthcare insurance industry while providing consumers with choice.

This would result in competition among healthcare providers. Competition would bring down the cost of healthcare.

Some people might not like MSA’s because they are liberating. They provide consumers of healthcare with freedom of choice. They also give consumers the opportunity to be responsible for their healthcare dollars while providing them with incentives to take care of their health.

MSAs could be used for private insurance purchasers, group insurance plans, employer self insurance plans, State Funded self-insurance plans and Medicare and Medicaid.

In each case the funding source is different. The cost of the high deductible insurance is low because the risk is low. 

If it were a $6,000 deductible MSA, the first $6,000 would be placed in a trust for the consumer. Whatever they did not spend would go into a retirement trust.  If they spent over $6,000 they would have first dollar healthcare insurance coverage. Their trust would obviously receive no money that year.

The incentive would be for consumers to take care of their health so they do not get sick and end up in an expensive emergency room.

If a person had a chronic illness such as asthma, Diabetes, or health disease with a tendency to congestive heart failure and ended up in the emergency room they would use up their $6,000.

If they took care of themselves by spending $3,000 of their $6,000 trust their funding source could afford to give their trust a $1500 reward. The benefit to the funding source is it saved money by the consumer not being admitted to the hospital. The patient stayed healthy and was more productive.

President Obama does not want to try this out. He wants consumers and businesses to be dependent of the central government for everything.

MSAs would lead to consumer independence from central government control of our healthcare. MSAs would put all consumers at whatever socioeconomic level in charge of their own destiny.

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

Please have a friend subscribe