Stanley Feld M.D., FACP, MACE Menu

Results found: 110

Permalink:

What Are The Defective Assumptions Made For ACO Implementation?

 

 Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 It is going to be very difficult for physicians and hospital systems to develop integrated medical delivery systems in the present time frame.

Dr. Don Berwick and his associates have a naïve view of the ability of organizations to form and execute Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs). ACOs fit well into President Obama’s worldview of government controlling our healthcare system.

There are two problems:

  1. The government is broke. It does not have the money to pay for a government takeover of the healthcare system.
  2. New systems need participant cooperation to succeed.

President Obama and Dr. Don Berwick have overestimated the abilities of the healthcare system to respond to their hubristic assumptions.

 “The ACO program is based on the hubristic assumption that the federal government can design the best organizational structure for the delivery of care, foster its development, and control its operation for the entire country."

Below are some of the defective assumptions made to implement ACOs.

Physicians and hospitals have little experience or control in managing risk. The experience with HMO’s in the 1980’s proved their inability to manage risk. Most physicians and hospital systems are not very interested in assuming this risk again. The risk of ACOs has been sugar coated by the administration.

 Patients are the only stakeholders who can control their healthcare risk. All health policy wonks ignore the role of the patients in controlling and managing their healthcare risk.

 Dr. Berwick thinks hospitals and physicians will be motivated to control patients’ healthcare risk with ACOs. He is wrong. I predict participation will be minimal. Those who participate in the ACO program will fail.

Healthcare policy should focus on how policy can provide incentives for patients to be motivated to control their own healthcare risk.

 The implementation of electronic health records will be more challenging than President Obama and Dr. Berwick believe. The financial support from President Obama’s stimulus package is going to turn out to be a waste of money. The EMR’s cost more than the government subsidy.

 EMR installation disrupts medical practices for at least six months. The incompatibility of information systems can only be overcome at great expense to both hospital and physician.

President Obama should be spending the stimulus money on the Ideal EMR. It would cost physicians and hospitals nothing. They would pay by the click. It would unify all the information systems nationwide. The Idea EMR would remove many of the barriers to achieving the goal of integrating medical data.

  Data measurement imposes another difficult barrier to implementation of ACOs. I have wondered what date U.S. News and World Report used to name Parkland Memorial Hospital among the 100 best hospitals in the nation while Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) used other data to disqualify Parkland Memorial Hospital from collecting Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement. I believe Parkland is a great hospital with a great CEO, Dr. Ron Anderson. Someone’s data is wrong.

  Can physicians and hospital systems trust CMS to measure their performance and pay for performance based on the data used?

 The challenge of collecting, analyzing, and reporting performance data will be the ACOs responsibility. CMS will evaluate the data collected and determine payment for performance.

 Most ACOs will have difficulty developing the data and reporting capability with present EMR capabilities.

  A goal of ACOs will be to implement standardized care management protocols. If successful it will commoditize medical practice. It will eliminate physicians’ judgment. It will destroy the patient-physician relationship.

I believe all physicians should practice evident based medicine (EBM). In the absence of tort reform physicians cannot avoid the practice of defensive medicine.

 ACOs are not designed to align the stakeholders’ vested interests. I can visualize hospitals fighting with their physicians over money distribution and medical care decisions. Payments for medical care are going to be bundled. In order to save money and receive the shared saving bonus, patients may have medical care rationed.

 ACOs are Primary Care Physician(PCP) centric. There is no requirement for specialists to limit their activity to a single ACO. Specialists will be critical to the effective performance of ACOs in order to qualify for the shared savings bonus.

 Who will decide which specialist a PCP will refer patients to? There will be fights about fees to pay specialists. Obamacare’s ACOs make no attempt to align providers’ vested interests. It leaves it up to the providers. Since hospital administrators will control the money fighting is inevitable.

Patients must be the leader of the healthcare team. Obamacare and ACOs make no attempt to put patients in a responsible, leadership position. Patients and family members must participate in managing multiple, complex chronic conditions. Patients need to be taught to manage and take responsibility for their health and health care. They need to be taught to engage their family and have the family participate in medical decision-making.

  Obamacare does not outline systems of care for chronic diseases for the potential ACO that might not have experience in team management.

  ACOs may not have the necessary management and implementation skills required to improve care delivered to patients. Improvement in medical care will require team management of chronic disease. Patients must be the leader of their team. This will require aligning shared interests and rewards among the different providers. This is where physicians and hospitals will lock horns.

New regulations have to be coordinated with the Stark anti- kickback legislation. It will require costs that have nothing to do with direct patient care.  Compliance with new regulatory requirements will require unprecedented and unmanageable levels of transparency and cooperation among hospital systems, physician organizations, and the payer.

 There is too much emphasis on central data collection and managing the data. Much of medical management depends upon on the spot clinical judgment.

 Learning systems must be built to have rapid cycle improvement in quality care.  I suspect many physicians and hospital administrators do not know the importance of learning systems.

 Developing cooperation among all the stakeholders to develop preventive medicine systems and systems of care for chronic disease does not develop overnight, especially when payment for those services are vague.

 These are just a few of the defective assumptions made by President Obama and Dr. Don Berwick that will prevent ACOs’ success.

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

 

 

 

Permalink:

It Is All About How You View The Elephant

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

 I received the following comment from a reader. The comment is sincere, honest and heart felt. The dysfunction in the healthcare system affected his mother and father.   

 In the past, I have pointed out the sources of waste in the healthcare system. All the stakeholders are at fault. I have included physicians in creating waste. I have not included physicians as a primary source of the waste. Their waste is secondary cause to other dysfunctions.

“Dr. Feld,

 This is a blind spot for you and a blog that comes across as defensive versus simply acknowledging the role the Physician must play in reducing excess utilization. “

 There is no question that physicians’ delivery of medical care can be ineffective and dysfunctional creating waste.

 It does not follow that physicians are the primary source of waste. Physicians are convenient targets for causing the majority of the waste in the healthcare system because the medical interface is between physicians and patients.

 Sometimes patients have a horrible experience interacting with the healthcare system.

Most people (80%) are not sick at any given time. They are not interested in understanding the dysfunction in the healthcare system because they are well.

It is difficult for a sick person to navigate the healthcare system. When a person is sick they realize how inefficient the system is.  

 I have tried to emphasize how all the stakeholders’ incentives are misaligned. The results is this dysfunction. Physicians’ incentives are created by government, healthcare insurance industry and hospital systems rules and regulations.

 I am not interested in making excuses for some physicians’ poor behavior. I am more interested in making the public aware of every stakeholder’s role in our dysfunctional healthcare system.  

 “Either you have never had someone in your family who’s been referred around the system with no significant benefit or your Endo experience is what you apply to the rest of healthcare delivery.”

 Unfortunately, I have had that experience and have had to intervene on behalf of a family member with some logical medical decision- making.

“Either way, you accept no responsibility for Physician intervention to reduce consumption of healthcare and all the data says you’re not being objective.  There are many reasons Physicians don’t intervene to reduce consumption but to imply it’s only a small amount of $ isn’t being honest.”

 I have tried to point out some of the major reasons for physician dysfunction.

 

  1. Lack of tort reform results in between $300 billion and $700 billion dollars in wasted defensive medicine costs.
  2.  Most physicians do not benefit from the defensive medicine procedure fees. Hospital systems do the procedures and bill independently.   
  3. The Healthcare insurance industry benefits because it is  able to raise premiums.
  4. The legal system does because it benefits from settlement fees because of the lack of tort reform..  

         e.  Inefficiency in communication as a result of the lack of functional electronic medical records.       

         f.   Inability of patients to make timely appointments and move through the system effectively and                efficiently due to lack of the use of information technology and effective scheduling programs.

         g. There is $150 billion dollars of administrative waste.

         h. Decrease in effectiveness in reproducible laboratory results and procedure results lead to                retesting to make the correct diagnosis.

 What can seem like piling on of procedures to a patient and his family might not be a quest for dollars but a quest for a correct diagnosis.

In most cases the dollars do not go into the ordering physician’s pocket.

This is the reason the healthcare system must be consumer driven. It would incentivize patients to challenge physicians who are spending the the consumers money. The system should not be government or healthcare insurance industry driven. Patients must own their healthcare dollars. Patients must be involved in understanding the physician’s thinking.

 “My mom was referred around the system for tests, specialist visits etc. for 6 years with a very clear set of symptoms until my sister diagnosed her through web based research with a Histamine allergy/reaction.  Why in the world with classic symptoms that are available on the web would she simply be handed off Dr. to Dr. to duplicate tests over and over again yielding no care plan or plan to narrow the diagnoses?” 

 “ The answer is EVERY activity, every visit, every test, every procedure generated revenue for the providers.  My sister is a real estate broker not a Dr.”

I cannot address this problem with the data provided. Maybe your mother went to the wrong physicians.

A Histamine reaction is are usually an epiphenomenon. The reactions are usually secondary to an underlying stimulant. Sometimes the underlying stimulant is a disease that can be deadly. If diagnosed the underlying diseases can be cured. Many time the cause is benign.  Perhaps this could explain her physicians difficulty in diagnosis.

My Dad was diagnosed with lung cancer in 1995.  He had a lobe removed and recovered for a great year in 1996.  In Nov 1996 he was diagnosed with brain mets (what were his chances for survival at that point?  No one ever talked to the family.) 

At the beginning of your Dad’s illness your parents and the family could have stepped in and demanded being involved in the treatment decisions. The family could have made the decision to not try for a cure at any time. 

 “They did brain surgery, radiation and rehab and 6 weeks later the cancer was back in the same location in the brain.  Now what were my Dad’s chances for survival?  No one ever mentioned palliative care or that my Dad was going to die barring a miracle.  Instead, another brain surgery was scheduled by the surgeon, then more radiation until my Dad’s brain was fried and he stroked.” 

 

 “Now, if you think that surgeon isn’t part of the problem, that generating revenue with activity isn’t rampant in our healthcare system, then I simply don’t give your blog much credibility because clearly it is and it must be addressed not by outsiders, but by Physicians.” 

You have described the reason Primary Care Physicians are demanding that they be the captain of the healthcare team.

I disagree with the PCPs. Patients and their families should be the captain of the healthcare team. The Primary Care Physicians should coordinate care and follow the will of patients and their family. Primary care physicians should be the coach of the healthcare team.  .

Your father’s case is an excellent example of defensive medicine on the part of the brain surgeon. He was probably doing everything he knew to save your father and cover himself defensively. It does not sound as if the family demanded being involved in the decision making process. The family must demand involvement.

 “These aren’t isolated cases of excess utilization, they are the norm.  If Dr.’s aren’t proactively part of fixing it, then care will be rationed.  If consumers get control of their own healthcare dollars it would be the single biggest hit to revenue for all providers that could possibly take place (I support consumers armed with info making decisions).”

 I do not think it would decrease physician revenue significantly. I think it would decrease waiting times to see a physician and decrease delays in treatment.

 The major cause of excess utilization is the lack of tort reform and the resulting defensive medicine. Consumers must drive physicians to communicate effectively or move on to another physician.

President Obama has refused to recognize tort reform as an issue.

Communication could be solved utilizing my concept of the Ideal Electronic Medical Record.

The healthcare insurance industry’s control of the healthcare dollar would vanish utilizing my concept of the Ideal Medical Saving Account. It would reduce costs by the 30-60% the healthcare insurance industry takes off the top for first dollar coverage. It would make consumers wise spenders.

 “In the meantime, the fee for activity system we have now doesn’t work for anyone except industry, insurance companies and providers who do expensive things.  The patients and doctors whose expertise requires cognitive time with patients have all been shortchanged on this journey to where we are today”.

This is precisely why we have to have a consumer driven healthcare system. Consumers must control their healthcare dollars and be individually responsible for their treatment decisions.

“Sorry, you’ve touched a nerve.” Sincerely your

The same blog hit a nerve in another reader.  He wrote:

“This piece made me think of an old verse that states the case of the physicians pretty well:”

I'm not allowed to run the train
The whistle I can't blow…
I'm not allowed to say how far
The railroad cars can go.
I'm not allowed to shoot off steam,
Nor even clang the bell…
But let the damn train jump the track
And see who catches Hell!

 It is easy to see the elephant from one point of view. Incentives have to be aligned. The healthcare system must be realigned to the patients’ point of view.

 President Obama and Dr. Don Berwick think they are seeing the problems from the patients’ point of view. They feel the government has to dictate care.

They are creating a system so bureaucratic and complex that they will blow up the healthcare system. They will make the system more dysfunctional and more costly. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink:

The Role of Physicians in Controlling Medical Care Costs and Reducing Waste

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

The Role of Physicians in Controlling Medical Care Costs and Reducing Waste by the RAND Corporation and David Geffen, University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine, Santa Monica was just published in the Journal of the America Medical Association (JAMA).  I do not think the JAMA should have published this article.

1.Why would the JAMA publish such an article?

2. Why are physicians blamed for all the waste in the system?

3. Why is it the physicians’ responsibility to eliminate waste when they are not the cause of the greatest percentage of the waste?

“The amount of money spent on medical care is increasing faster than the gross domestic product (GDP), and the federal deficit is increasing.”

The initial statement assumes that the government deficit is increasing because physicians control government spending for healthcare.

This is only partly correct. The question I have is maybe patients should drive medical costs and not the government.  

The government bureaucracy and the healthcare insurance industry has created this cost monster.

 “Budget experts believe that the deficit cannot be reduced unless medical spending can be controlled. What role will physicians play in controlling health care cost growth? Are physicians even willing to play a role?

The article outlines the steps physicians must take to reduce waste and therefore the budget deficit. The assumption is physicians are the main source of the healthcare system’s waste.

The RAND Corporation does not consider the waste of the government bureaucracy, the healthcare insurance industry’s excessive fees, the hospital systems’ excessive billings, nor the pharmaceutical companies excessive charges for medication. Not considered is the excessive waste that results from the forced practice of defensive medicine because of the lack of tort reform.

If all these issues were addressed, waste and costs would be markedly decreased. There would be no need to try to commoditize physicians’ medical decisions.

I cannot visualize success in trying to commoditize the physician’s decision-making processes.

The healthcare system should be consumer driven with the consumers owning their healthcare dollars and making their own healthcare decisions. The government must help teach consumers to make appropriate medical care decisions with their own money. The government could provide the money. It would eliminate all the bureaucratic waste and secondary stakeholder abuse because it would create a true marketplace driven by consumers and not an artificial marketplace driven by government inefficiency. Consumers must make their own medical care decisions and be responsible for their actions. 

The authors of the article suggest that physicians have three options for participation in controlling healthcare costs. The problem is it assumes the burden for controlling costs are the responsibility of physicians.

     1.     "Physicians can do nothing."

      2.    "Health care can be rationed."

     3.   " Physicians take the lead in identifying and eliminating waste in US health care system."

    4. (We have tried to lead.)

    5. (President Obama has ignored us.)

“Physicians could define waste by assigning all services to 1 of 4 types of care—inappropriate, equivocal, appropriate, or necessary”.

This is subjective busy work that is destined to fail. It will also stifle creativity, thinking, problem solving and innovation.

Physicians try to practice evidence-based medicine. There are defects in determining best practices. In many cases the conclusions drawn from clinical results are inaccurate. It is arbitrary based on the bias of the experts picked to be the judges.

1.Inappropriate care, the potential health benefit to the patient is less than the potential harm caused by the procedure, device, or drug

2. With equivocal care, potential harm and benefit are about equal.

3. With appropriate care, potential benefit to the patient exceeds potential harm.

Necessary care is appropriate, represents the only viable option, and produces a large health benefit.

Who decides appropriate and necessary care?

An excellent example is the difficulty deciding appropriate and necessary care in the use of post-menopausal hormonal replacement therapy. The study design of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) was defective, the execution of the study was ineffective and the statistical analysis was inaccurate. The conclusions of the WHI are suspect. Yet the WHI has been heralded as evidence based medicine for best practices. It has changed the course of women’s health forever.

A tool to measure clinical waste across all clinical services does not exist. This is because the definition of “clinical waste” is ever changing. Today’s best practices can be tomorrow’s clinical waste.

Physicians are constantly trying to define best practices. It must be the job of physicians. Physicians are constantly trying to teach other physicians best practices. Physicians are constantly trying to learn to keep current.

The best practices have to be put into context with changing scientific concepts. Potential bias must be evaluated.

The clinical decisions should not be the interpretations of policy wonks or bureaucrats.

None of this is black and white. Policy wonks, economists and bureaucrats have little understanding of the complexity involved in clinical decisions.

Their interest is to somehow try to quantitatively measure physicians’ clinical decisions against an artificially created set of standards defined as waste.

“Physicians prefer the medical definition. But it is not known how much clinical waste is in the system.”

Another excellent clinical example of the controversy is the treatment of choice for Graves Disease (hyperthyroidism). There are cogent arguments for the treatment of choice for Graves Disease with either radioactive iodine or medications such as PTU or Tapazole. There is no unequivocal scientific evidence for an advantage of either treatment.

Attempts have been made to prove an advantage of one treatment over the other. When there is a lack of unequivocal evidence for best practices, patients must be given a choice of therapy.

A defect in the attempts to determine best practice in clinical research is the elimination of patients’ freedom to judge and choose or participate in the best treatment choice for that individual. 

It is physicians’ responsibility to defend and maintain that freedom for their patients. The reasons for waste in the healthcare system should not be determined arbitrarily by bureaucrats.   

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

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink:

Nation’s Health Care Bill Predicted To Double By 2020

 Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Massachusetts has experienced a sixty percent increase in healthcare costs since “Romneycare” was enacted in 2006.  The total cost of medical care in 2005 was $350,100,000. In 2009 the total cost of care had risen to $587,900,000. This represents an annual growth rate of 13.7% per year.

The Medicare Office of the Actuary reported it expects healthcare costs to increase from the $2.6 trillion dollars in 2011 to $4.6 trillion dollars by 2020 under President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act.

“The Medicare Office of the Actuary estimated that health spending will grow by an average of 5.8 percent a year through 2020, compared to 5.7 percent without the health care overhaul. With that growth, the nation is expected to spend $4.6 trillion on health care in 2020, nearly double the $2.6 trillion spent last year.

I believe the Medicare Office of the Actuary growth rate estimate of healthcare costs is low. Obamacare is about expanding healthcare coverage for the uninsured. It is actually about driving the entire population into a “Public Option” which will be subsidized by the federal government. President Obama’s goal is to have total government control over the healthcare system.

The total rate of growth of healthcare costs will be greater than 5.8% per year. President Obama is not going to be able to decrease costs by insuring at least 30 million more people. Obamacare has done nothing to restrain the healthcare industry’s billing policies. The healthcare industry’s profit will escalate even further as the federal deficit escalates.

President Obama declared that Accountable Care Organizations, Pay4Performance and Electronic Medical Records would reign in costs. I believe this is a pipe dream.  These programs are in the developmental stages and have an excellent chance of failing as the entitlement expands.

President Obama has continued to ignore an important healthcare cost generator.  Defensive medicine generates between $300 billion and $700 billion dollars a year in costs. Tort Reform if done correctly could decrease the cost of defensive medicine to the healthcare system markedly.

“The federal health law, which will expand coverage to 30 million currently uninsured Americans, will have little effect on the nation's rising health spending in the next decade, a government report said today.’

I hope the American people do not let President Obama trick them again with his demagogary. Last week he told us he was going to decrease the federal deficit by 4 trillion dollars in ten years. It is not true because he is going to increase the federal debt by 9 trillion dollars or 4 trillion less than he had planned. Deficit spending continues unabated.

 Everyone has to watch closely. He is bankrupting the country.

 White House Deputy Chief of Staff Nancy-Ann DeParle tells us not to worry. "The bottom line from the report is clear: more Americans will get coverage and save money and health expenditure growth will remain virtually the same,"

 

She stated that the new programs that administration officials said they hope to implement would change the way Medicare and Medicaid pay doctors and hospitals. (ACOs, Pay4Peformance and EMRs). Doctor’s and hospitals are only part of the problem. A bigger part of the problem is the administrative service providers (healthcare insurance industry) expenses, the cost of government bureaucracy, and the increase in defensive medicine

“Meredith Rosenthal, a health economist at Harvard School of Public Health, said it is difficult to predict what impact the health law will have on slowing national health spending.  "Many of the components of the law that are intended to control costs are still in draft form,"

The key to President Obama’s deception to the American people is to distract Americans from connecting the dots. Fifty per cent of employers will drop employer sponsored insurance programs and pay the penalty. Employees will buy insurance through the state insurance exchanges. States are refusing to participate in the insurance exchanges. The federal government is picking the ball up for the states and will have total control over the insurance exchanges.

Baby Boomers are joining the Medicare roles in increasing numbers by the minute. The cost of Medicare will escalate. Seniors are not going to be able to find physicians who accept Medicare because President Obama is going to decrease reimbursement by thirty percent January 1, 2012.

President Obama believes physicians are the problem. He refuses to believe the reality of the dysfunctional healthcare system. All the stakeholders are the problem. Some stakeholders donate more to his reelection than others. He has a strong record of playing favoritism to those that support him.

Americans are waking up to his tricks. The healthcare system has to be reformed. He has the wrong approach. I hope the electorate does not fall for his charm again. 

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

 

 

 

 

Permalink:

Healthcare Costs: Who Gets The Money?


Stanly Feld M.D., FACP, MACE

The National Institute for Healthcare Management Foundations report also contained data on the amounts of money each provider received for patient care.  There are important take home points in the data.

The data was obtained from newly updated figures of the National Health Expenditure Accounts (NHEA), the official estimator of health care spending in the United States.

During the period from 2005 to 2009 healthcare spending rose, and premiums for private health insurance increased an average of nearly 15 percent per year.

In the last two years private healthcare premiums rose 35%. The 35% increase occurred in anticipation of the healthcare insurance industry being forced by President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act to provide healthcare insurance to high-risk consumers at the same premium as lower risk consumers.

Physicians have been blamed for increasing fees and over testing. The reality is physicians have experienced decreases in reimbursement for their services.

It is true some physicians over test to defend themselves from lawsuits. Tort reform is essential to decrease the practice of defensive medicine. Texas has reversed this trend with its new tort reform laws. Few other states have followed.

How healthcare dollars are distributed is revealing.

The United States spent $8,086 per person for healthcare in 2009 . Total healthcare spending as a percent of GDP reached 17.6 percent in 2009. It is expected to increase in the coming years.

In 2005, the United States spent $6,827 per person on healthcare.

 

             Who Gets The Money?

 

                   2005/person      %        2009/person      %

Hospital Care                 $ 2071               36         $2471            31

Physicians and Lab        $1417               20         $1646            20

Home Healthcare           $ 869               13          $1066            13

Rx + Medical Devices     $910                 13         $1066             13

Dental and other           $473               7           $548                7

Non Medical Expense    $1109                 16         $1289             16

 

There are many important points to be made about these numbers.  Let us assume these numbers are close to correct.

  1. Hospital services include inpatient and hospital-based outpatient, home health care connected to hospitals, nursing home and hospice care connect to hospitals, as well as the services of inpatient pharmacy and resident physicians.

The higher the obesity rates the higher the incidence of chronic disease. The higher the incidence of chronic disease the higher the complication rates from chronic disease. This results in higher utilization of hospital services. 

Each hospital service has an inflated markup. Remember the $45 dollar aspirin.

Hospitals with resident physicians are subsidies. These hospitals receive higher reimbursement than other hospitals. 

Hospitals collected 36% of the $8,086 dollars for patient care. It is obvious that reducing the number of hospitalizations for the complications of chronic disease would reduce the total cost of care.

 2. The physician and clinical services category reflect the care provided by physicians (MDs and DOs) in their offices and freestanding outpatient care settings and services billed independently by freestanding laboratories.   

It is obvious that physicians do not receive 20% of the per capita spending for medical care.

Laboratories that do lab tests, x-ray studies, MRI scans, CAT Scans and Ultrasound share reimbursement for this category. Unless physicians own the laboratories, they do not share in the reimbursement. It would be important to know the percentage of physicians that own those independent laboratories. 

Physicians own a small but growing percentage of laboratories. It is difficult for a physician or group of physicians to make a living from cognitive reimbursements alone. Physicians needs to collect ancillary laboratory fees to stay in business.  

 

Companies owning these laboratories are secondary stakeholders. They feed off the intellectual property of physicians. 

It is fair to say that physician reimbursement is half of the 20% of the dollars spent of medical care in this category. Physicians’ reimbursement for care is 10% or $708 of the $8086.

 3. $1,100 or 13% goes to other secondary stakeholders for care provided by freestanding home health agencies along with other long-term care providers include freestanding nursing homes, rehabilitation facilities and continuing care retirement communities with on-site nursing facilities (assisted living). Other non-traditional settings and providers receiving reimbursement include school, worksite health clinics, residential mental health/substance abuse treatment centers, some ambulance providers, and services provided through Medicaid home and community-based waivers.

 

There are many independent companies involved it the home healthcare business. Medicare patients utilize the majority of these services. The fees charged by the Home Healthcare agencies are high. These Home Healthcare agencies know how to pile on the services in order to receive better reimbursement. These agencies receive much more than the family practitioners who referred the patients.

 4. $1,100 of the $8086 is spent for purchases of prescription drugs, durable medical equipment and other medical products.

Pharmaceutical companies receive a large and growing proportion of the healthcare dollars spent for medical care but not the entire 13%.

How many advertisements do we see on television for electric wheelchairs totally paid for by Medicare? How about home glucose monitors? If it were not a very profitable business, we would not see so much direct to public advertisements.

5. The care given by dentists and other non-physician health care professionals including chiropractors, optometrists, podiatrists, private-duty nurses, and physical, occupational and speech therapists are included in this category.

Dentists and other non-physician healthcare professionals consumed 7% of the healthcare dollars for medical care.

 

The study is inaccurate for this category. It does not capture the actual money spent for dental care. Dental insurance usually provides poor coverage. Most dentists do not accept dental insurance and most people do not have dental insurance.

If we assume most of the cost should be attributed to the other healthcare professionals, these healthcare professionals receive as much or more than physicians.

The difference will become greater because President Obama is going to reduce physician reimbursement 30% on January 1, 2011.

 6. The last group is money allocated as direct patient care but is considered non-medical. This expense totals 16% of the healthcare dollars. It is included as a patient care expense and not overhead used to calculate premiums using the  Medical-Loss ratio formula.   

Healthcare insurers have insisted that typical business expenses to improve patient care should not be calculated into the Medical-Loss Ratio. The industry lobbied President Obama’s healthcare team and achieved its goal. 

President Obama made this deal with the healthcare insurance industry in exchange for its support of his Healthcare Reform Act. 

These non-medical care expenses are included in direct medical care. These expenses are 16% of the $8086 dollars per capita. These expenses are;

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

b.The cost to ferret out fraud by identifying doctors performing unnecessary operations, procedures, and tests.  

c. The cost for programs (help desks) to try that keep people with chronic diseases such as diabetes out of emergency rooms.

d.The healthcare insurance industry believes it should be entitled to expense sales commissions paid to insurance agents.

e. It wants to expense taxes paid on investments.                                         

 Healthcare insurers insist that typical business expenses should not be considered part of the Medical-Loss Ratio.   

President Obama has insisted that the Medical Loss ratio should be reduced to15% from 20-30 %. This means that the healthcare insurance industry can add an additional 15% above expenses paid for direct patient care when calculating insurance premiums.

The additional 15% is for healthcare insurance companies salaries and other expenses.

The total premium percentage the healthcare insurance industry takes off the top is 31% under present rules. Previously the healthcare insurance industry took between 35% to 45% of the total healthcare dollars paid into the system. 

 

                                    The Take Home Points

  1. The healthcare insurance industry receives an excessive percentage of the healthcare dollar.
  2. Physicians receive a surprising low percentage of the healthcare dollars.
  3. Hospitals receive a large percentage of the healthcare dollars because of pricing standards and the increasing numbers of patients with chronic disease.
  4. Ancillary stakeholders receive a greater percentage of the healthcare dollars than physicians.

 

President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act cures very few of these problems.

 

 

 

 

Permalink:

A More Logical Plan Than “Obamacare”

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE 

I do not think President Obama understands basic healthcare economics. Patients and physicians will always drive spending for healthcare. The government will not be able to control spending centrally.

Forty to sixty cents of every healthcare dollar is spent on administrative costs. CMS claims that Medicare spends only 2.5% on administrative services.  This 2.5% is the cost for CMS to outsource Medicare coverage to the healthcare insurance industry.

The healthcare insurance industry takes 40% to 60% of every healthcare dollar for their administrative fees. The law says they can only take 15% out of every dollar for administrative fees. Eighty five percent of the premium dollar must go to patient care. 

 The problem is the 85% includes many fees that are, in reality, administrative expenses such as certifying physicians for their plans and insurance sales fees among others. There is a profit margin for each of these “expenses.” President Obama has permitted these administrative fees to be included in the 85% category for direct healthcare costs.

Physicians get 15% and hospitals get 20% of every healthcare dollar. Where does the rest of the money go?

Forty percent gets taken off the top by the healthcare insurance industry. A good place to start is by setting up a system that creates competition among the healthcare insurance companies. 

The government always blames physicians for the waste. Physicians and patients drive healthcare expenses. Waste occurs as a result of perverse incentives and middlemen abuse. All the stakeholders are to blame. The healthcare insurance industry generates the most waste. Defensive medicine is the second leading cause of waste. Legislation using common sense could eliminate most of this waste.

"A 2005 report by the National Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine found that 30-40 cents of every dollar spent on health care are spent on costs associated with "overuse, underuse, misuse, duplication, system failures, unnecessary repetition, poor communication, and inefficiency. Medicare is especially vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.”

Medicare spending must be decreased. The best way to decrease the spending is to provide incentives for seniors to drive the system rather than the system driving seniors.

 “Unfortunately, the debate on Capitol Hill and in the media is too often fueled by partisan fear mongering instead of a thoughtful examination of the facts.” 

No amount of price cutting or central-government dictates will mitigate these problems.

A consumer (seniors) driven healthcare system providing incentives for providers and patients is the only way to fix the system.

Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) are being proposed and organized to harness the spending of the fee for service systems.

ACOs are systems in which doctors and hospitals team up to offer coordinated care. Both are held accountable for cost and quality in a disguised capitation system. “Quality” is not effectively measured.

 Hospital systems and physicians have long had an adversarial relationship because hospital systems have leveraged its brick and motor value off the intellectual property and mechanical skills of physicians.

More and more physicians are realizing this fact. Physicians are building their own hospitals and outpatient surgical clinics. Physicians are consciously or unconsciously resistant to hospital systems dividing the money and participating in the reimbursement sharing judgments.

Neither group wants to be at risk for “poor outcomes” that might be the patients’ fault.

The incentives to form ACOs are too weak. The regulations are 400 pages too long and complicated.  Physicians do not have the time or money to fully understand the regulations.  “Trust me” does not work anymore.  The major hospital systems have backed out of forming ACOs under the regulations because they put the hospital system at too great a risk.

Paul Ryan’s plan of “premium support” can potentially encourage formation of Accountable Care Organizations The ACOs have to be attractive enough for patients to choose to join them. Hospital systems would have to be successful in organizing them.  Ryan’s plan is a “managed competition model.”  The government would make defined contributions for beneficiaries depending on the beneficiaries’ means. The subsidy would be a total subsidy for the poor and a sliding scale subsidy for others.

Beneficiaries would have a choice from a variety of health plans with no discrimination based on health status or wealth. Standard coverage contracts understandable by ordinary people would be required to make comparisons possible. Internet FAQs would be made available.

Competition for consumer (seniors) business would drive health plans to innovate in ways that would cut waste and improve “quality.” The use of well-designed healthcare insurance exchanges would drastically reduce healthcare insurance company marketing costs. The completion by healthcare insurance companies in effective healthcare insurance exchanges could result in healthcare insurance companies not taking 40% off top as they currently do. The system could be set up so that consumers could buy the insurance across state lines.

The Ryan plan does not deal with defensive medicine. States could easily be presented with an ideal tort reform model to adopt or modify. In Texas the model is not ideal but it is effective and would be effective nationally. If a model included a “loser pays” clause it would decrease frivolous law suits and decrease defensive medicine testing dramatically. In most instances physicians do not receive increased compensation for the increase in testing. Therefore the motivation is not testing simply to make more money.

President Obama needs to understand the basics of healthcare economics before he goes on and totally destroys the healthcare system.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Permalink:

Medical Care Should Not Be About Politics.

 

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

On May 30,2011, an article was published in the New York Times entitled “As Physicians’ Jobs Change, So Do Their Politics.”

This article has been reproduced multiple times in multiple blogs. The New York Times article leads readers to misleading conclusions based on inaccurate facts.  I felt the story was insignificant and passed it by. After I received a few comments about the story, I decided to critique it.

The author quotes a Maine State Senator who proposed a tort reform bill.

State Senator Lois A. Snowe-Mello offered a bill in February to limit doctors’ liability that she was sure the powerful doctors’ lobby would cheer. Instead, it asked her to shelve the measure.”

“It was like a slap in the face,” said Ms. Snowe-Mello, who describes herself as a conservative Republican. “The doctors in this state are increasingly going left.”

Tort Reform should not be a political issue. It is a medical care issue. I described the Massachusetts Medical Society survey on defensive medicine in the past. By extrapolation of the survey facts between 300 billion and 700 billion dollars is wasted on defensive medicine per year. This does not include the wear and tear of frivolous lawsuits on patients and physicians.

The Maine Medical Association does not have the position quoted by Senator Lois A. 

“We are a coalition of three Maine health care associations collaborating to protect the public’s access to quality care and to restrain the inflation of health care cost. We hope to accomplish what many other states have already done by reforming liability laws so that your physician remains in Maine and the best new doctors continue to come here to practiceVictims of negligence deserve compensation and it not our intention to deny these patients their rights. But the liability system must be restructured to be fare to all.”

The article goes on to say’ Doctors were once overwhelmingly male and usually owned their own practices. They generally favored lower taxes and regularly fought lawyers to restrict patient lawsuits.” 

But doctors are changing. They are abandoning their own practices and taking “salaried jobs” in hospitals, particularly in the North, but increasingly in the South as well. Half of all younger doctors are women, and that share is likely to grow.”

There are no national surveys that track doctors’ political leanings, but as more doctors move from business owner to shift worker, their historic alliance with the Republican Party is weakening from Maine as well as South Dakota, Arizona and Oregon, according to doctors’ advocates in those and other states.”

There are several implications is these few sentences that would lead readers to conclude that;

  1. President Obama is correct in ignoring Tort Reform because as physicians become more “liberal” they side with the plaintiff attorneys’ arguments about the value of litigation. The article ignores the increase in medical care costs resulting from defensive medicine and malpractice insurance.
  2. Physicians who are taking “salaried jobs in hospitals” have no interest in protecting themselves against frivolous lawsuits.  The implication is malpractice is now the hospital’s problem. It implies that defensive medicine will decrease.

(The reference sited under hospitals is inaccurate. It has nothing to do with physicians being salaried by hospitals.) There are many problems and conflicts between physicians and hospital starting to surface (previously discussed) with hospitals buying physicians’ practices and deciding on the value of physicians in the healthcare system.

  1. As more physicians become shift workers rather than owners they are becoming more liberal.

(There is no discussion about why many physicians are joining hospital systems.)

       4. It implies that women are lazy and do not want to own medical practices.

        5.  Since physicians are more liberal they therefore believe “Obamacare “ is    good for America. 

The Maine Medical Association does not believe in any of these implications. Its statements are clear. It understands that physicians are driven out of the state because of the lack of malpractice reform. It has a declining number of physicians practicing in the state and the cost of care is increasing while the quality of care is decreasing.       

Our coalition is seeking to advance medical liability reform to preserve access to physician services, improve the affordability of health care and ensure high quality care in Maine.

Across the country, America’s patients are losing access to care because the nation’s out-of-control legal system is forcing physicians in some areas of the country to retire early, relocate or give up performing high-risk medical procedures. There are now 21 states in a full-blown medical liability crisis — up from 12 in 2002. In crisis states, patients continue to lose access to care. In some states, obstetricians and rural family physicians no longer deliver babies. Meanwhile, high-risk specialists no longer provide trauma care or perform complicated surgical procedures.”

 These statements contradict the accuracy of the article. However, the media is the message. The New York Times represents the traditional media. With its bias it drives this disinformation or misinformation front and center. Readers accept the bias and do not think critically.

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

 

 

 

 

Permalink:

Health Care and Federal and State Deficits

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP

Published: December 11, 2010

The basic truth is Federal and State deficits cannot be fixed unless spending for Medicare and Medicaid is decreased. President Obama’s Healthcare Reform Act‘s bureaucratic complexity of will increase the cost of the healthcare system without increasing the quality of healthcare.

New schemes such as Accountable Care Organizations will fail as did the Health Maintenance Organizations of the 1980’s and 1990’s.

None of our political leaders are interested in facing the real reasons for the escalating healthcare costs.

This year Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP will account for more than 20 percent of all federal spending. These entitlements cost more than Social Security or National Defense.

The entitlements are being expanded inefficiently by President Obama’s healthcare reform act.

By 2035 federal health care spending is projected to account for almost 40 percent of the federal budget. At the current rate of increase in Medicare eligible aging population, a rising Medicaid population and the rising healthcare costs the federal government will collapse under its own weight.

Two bipartisan commissions have issued recommendations to sharply reduce annual deficits, in part through bold changes — some sound, others dubious — in the way health care is paid for.”

The White House commission, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, proposes ways to decrease entitlement spending for Medicare and Medicaid by nearly $400 billion dollars between 2012 and 2020.

A second commission, an independent panel headed by Pete Domenici and Alice Rivlin, has suggested savings of $137 billion dollars by 2020 by Medicare cost-sharing.

Both commissions have some good suggestions. Many of the ideas of both commissions are wrong.

The real reasons for escalating healthcare costs are;

  1. The grotesque profits of the healthcare insurance industry as a result of the federal government outsourcing the administrative services for Medicare and Medicaid. (See 40 billion dollar per year growth)
  2. The lack of states limiting premium rate increases for the healthcare insurance industry.
  3. The absence of promoting rate competition among healthcare insurance companies.
  4. The extremely high cost (estimated 300 billion to 750 billion dollars a year) for defensive medicine as a result of President Obama’s refusal to deal with effective tort reform.
  5. The lack of incentives for consumers to maintain their health. The obesity epidemic represents one example where incentives are lacking.
  6. The lack of effective public education that would teach people the principles of health maintenance.
  7. Discourage confusing media coverage of clinical research studies. The media is interested in the sensational contradictions inherent in serious clinical research.
  8. These contradictions are supported by the publication of shabby clinical research in medical journals and other publications.
  9. The lack of effective public service announcements about health.
  10. The lack of consumer incentives for maintaining good health and utilizing medical services wisely.
  11. The ideal Medical Savings Account would solve many of these problems instantly.
  12. Few healthcare policy makers think consumers are smart enough to understand how to use the ideal Medical Saving Account effectively. Therefore health policy “experts” dismiss Medical Saving Accounts.
  13. Medical Savings Accounts are different than President Obama’s restricted health savings account.

Both commissions are promoting the same ideas of redistribution of wealth and cost shifting. Both increase the cost to those that can afford it. Neither commission deals with consumer incentives.

President Obama’s healthcare reform act does not deal with consumer incentives. It deals with government control and consumer dependence on regulations.

All of the ideas of the commissions are cost containment ideas, not health promoting ideas.

Both commissions shift much of the burden of insurance coverage from the federal budget to individuals or to the states.

The commissions’ recommendations are the typical political shell game. They produce no real reduction in the cost of health care. They are a political ploy because they make the federal deficit look better while not doing a thing to repair the healthcare system..

One suggestion is to require wealthier older people to pay more for Medicare coverage and more of the cost for their own health care. Medicare already uses means testing to set the Medicare premium. The means testing is calculated using IRS tax returns. The distributions of IRA funds are taxed twice. Medicare costs more in after-tax dollars than ordinary group insurance for many seniors.

The problem is that means testing doesn’t work to reduce the deficit. Half of all Medicare beneficiaries live on low incomes and pay minimal premiums. Cost-shifting will undermine the health or financial security of senior Americans of modest means. Beneficiaries might have to pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars in additional out of pocket expenses.

The Domenici-Rivlin commission is advocating ending employer pre-tax exemption for healthcare coverage. This will increase federal revenue and lower the deficit. It will also increase taxes and decrease discretionary income. The result will be a decrease in consumer spending. A decrease in consumer spending will hurt the economy. Ultimately it will increase the federal deficit and decrease our standard of living.

It is time for common senses and sound economic thinking to Repair the Healthcare System.

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

Permalink:

One Size Doesn’t Fit All

Stanley Feld M.D.,FACP,MACE

Prior to the passage of his healthcare reform act President Obama removed a provision dealing with reimbursing physicians for end of life counseling. There had been a great public uproar over this provision.

It was viewed at a first step toward end of life rationing of care. It was really a signal that most care would be rationed.

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system.

Sarah Palin called it death panels.” A government panel would decide whether Medicare would pay for the treatment of patients deemed hopeless regardless of the patient’s will.

Sarah Palin’s use of “death panels” was sensationalistic. In our sound bite society this was an effective sound bite.

The words “death panel” illustrated the truth about a world of finite resources and infinite entitlements.

The government cannot afford entitlements much longer. Yet President Obama’s healthcare reform act is going to expand the Medicare and Medicaid entitlements.

President Obama plans to control entitlement spending by defining what he will pay for. The result will be rationing of care.

There are other ways out of the mess. President Obama is not attacking the root of the problem. One way is a consumer driven healthcare model using ideal medical savings accounts. It would place the responsibility on patients and their family. Patients would be in a position to choose rather than having the third party (the federal government) choose their medical care. Patients and their family might decide to limit hopeless care when they are spending their own money..

A system of sensible tort reform would decrease the large cost of defensive medicine. The result would be lower healthcare costs. President Obama has ignored tort reform.

These two changes can help attack a few of the root causes of the increasing healthcare costs.

I have objected to President Obama’s healthcare reform act. It places all the decision making power in the executive branch and out of the hands of congressional oversight.

The Obama administration has the power to effect change through regulation rather than legislation . An example is Dr. Donald Berwick, chief of CMS, instituting the same policy by regulation that was removed from the bill by legislation. The new regulations go into effect January 1 2011.

At a stroke, Medicare chief Donald Berwick has revived the "death panel" debate from two summers ago.

CMS will enact the same policy removed from the bill through regulation. Congress has had no input. There will be a never ending series of steps to give government control over both patients’ and physicians’ freedom to make medical decisions. Some regulations seem benign on the surface. President Obama has been given complete control over the healthcare system by his healthcare reform act.

It is the reason there is such an outcry to repeal his healthcare reform act. President Obama has tried to hide the new regulations from stakeholders involved.

The office of Oregon Democrat Earl Blumenauer, the author of the original rider who then lobbied Medicare to cover the service, sent an email to supporters cheering this "victory" but asked that they not tell anyone for fear of perpetuating "the ‘death panel’ myth." The email added that "Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch."

President Obama has used a number of tricks to achieve his goal. He appointed Dr. Berwick during congressional recess without congressional hearing after he withheld the request for a congressional hearing and approval for 3 months.

Dr. Berwick now slips through a regulation about reimbursement that Congress explicitly rejected. The email slipped out illustrating the scheming with his political patrons to duck any public scrutiny.

“Expect many more such nontransparent improvisations under the vast powers ObamaCare handed the executive branch.”

Administrative spokesmen, when challenged, immediately declared “the rule-making is not coercive and gives seniors more autonomy, not less.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

The facts are a panel of medical experts decide on treatments or service that are worthy of reimbursement. They then tell the administrators what to pay for. Some treatment won’t be paid for it even if it is in the best interests of patients.

Can a panel of medical experts be wrong? They certainly can. The experts judgments might be correct. However, their opinion and exceptions to the regulations cannot be incorporated into the healthcare system by inflexible bureaucratic machinery.

The bureaucrats put the experts’ decisions into a rules based computer program. Reimbursement is driven by this inflexible system , not by medical circumstances or medical judgment.

Last month a group of Clinical Endocrinologists received a Medicare denial code 151 stating;

“Payment adjusted because the payer deems the information submitted does

not support this many/frequency of services.”

This had not happened to this group in 20 years of endocrine practice. It concerned serially measuring thyroid function to regulate thyroid replacement therapy after patients are rendered hypothyroid with radioactive iodine of surgery. Initially patients have to be followed with thyroid function testing every month or two.

Medicare allowed payment for the first laboratory service, then denied the next three tests as “too frequently.”

CMS also describes in its National Coverage Determination (NCD).

Thyroid testing may be covered up to two times a year in clinically stable

patients; more frequent testing may be reasonable and necessary for patients

whose thyroid therapy has been altered or in whom symptoms or signs of hyperthyroidism

or hypothyroidism are noted.

The “medical experts” got the exceptions correct but did not define the frequency of testing to permit the CMS to incorporate into the reimbursement system..

An endocrine practice can submit for redetermination within 120 days. If redetermination fails physicians have 80 days to file for reconsideration.Reconsiderations are the second level in the appeal process and are conducted by the Qualified Independent Contractors (QICs). If physicians receive an unfavorable reply at the reconsideration level, there are three more levels of the appeal process, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Hearing, Appeals Council Review and the Judicial Review in U.S. District Court.

Imagine all the costs involved on both sides in order to adjudicate treatment that is evidence based and totally indicated. Imagine the frustration of physicians treating patients. .

From past experience these hassles will increase as the government gets more and more control over the healthcare system. Patients’ medical care is not first. Federal rules and regulations are first.

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