February 9th, 2011 by KevinMD in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
Health reformers propose the proliferation of integrated health systems, like the Mayo Clinic or Kaiser Permanente, which, according to the Dartmouth Atlas, lead to better patient care and improved cost control.
To that end, accountable care organizations (ACOs) have been a major part of health reform, changing the way healthcare is delivered. Never mind that patients may not be receptive to the new model, but the creation of these large, integrated physician-hospital entities that progressive policy experts espouse comes with repercussions. Monopoly power.
To prepare for the new model of healthcare delivery, physician practices have been consolidating. In many cases, they’re being bought by hospitals. Last year, I wrote how this is leading to the death of the private practice physician.
But with consolidation comes a tilt in market power. Health insurers, desperate to control costs, are finding it more difficult to negotiate with hospital-physician practices that dominate a market. And patients are going to side with the hospital — insurers that leave out popular doctors and medical facilities face a backlash from patients. Witness the power that Partners Healthcare has in the Boston market that’s mostly driven by patient demand for big-reputation, high-cost Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women’s Hospital. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
January 29th, 2011 by KevinMD in Health Policy, Opinion
No Comments »
I recently pointed to a BMJ study concluding that pay for performance doesn’t seem to motivate doctors. It has been picking up steam in major media with TIME, for instance, saying: “Money isn’t everything, even to doctors.”
So much is riding on the concept of pay for performance, that it’s hard to fathom what other options there are should it fail. And there’s mounting evidence that it will.
Dr. Aaron Carroll, a pediatrician at the University of Indiana, and regular contributor to KevinMD.com, ponders the options. First he comments on why the performance incentives in the NHS failed:
Perhaps the doctors were already improving without the program. If that’s the case, though, then you don’t need economic incentives. It’s possible the incentives were too low. But I don’t think many will propose more than a 25 percent bonus. It’s also possible that the benchmarks which define success were too low and therefore didn’t improve outcomes. There’s no scientific reason to think that the recommendations weren’t appropriate, however. More likely, it’s what I’ve said before. Changing physician behavior is hard.
So if money can’t motivate doctors, what’s next? Physicians aren’t going to like what Dr. Carroll has to say. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com*
January 24th, 2011 by Davis Liu, M.D. in Better Health Network, Opinion
No Comments »
A recent post on the Health Affairs blog proclaimed “The End of Internal Medicine As We Know It.” What the post is really asking about is the future of primary care in the world of healthcare reform and the creation of accountable care organizations (ACOs). While doctors should be naturally concerned about change, I don’t completely agree with this article.
ACOs are organizations that are integrated and accountable for the health and well-being of a patient and also have joint responsibilities on how to thoughtfully use a patient’s or employer’s health insurance premium, something that is sorely lacking in the current health care structure. These were recently created and defined in the healthcare reform bill.
Yet the author seems to suggest that this is a step backwards:
Modern industry abandoned command-and-control style vertical integration decades ago in favor of flatter, more nimble institutions.
Not true. Successful organizations are ones that are tightly integrated, like Apple, FedEx, Wal-Mart, and Disney.
The author talks briefly about how Europe in general does better than the U.S. in terms of outcomes and costs and has a decentralized system. All true. However, contrasting Europe and America isn’t relevant. After all, who isn’t still using the metric system? Therefore solutions found outside the U.S. probably aren’t applicable due to a variety of reasons. Americans like to do things our way.
What I do agree on is that doctors need to be part of the solution and ensure that the disasters of decades ago — like labeling primary care doctors (internists and family physicians) as “gatekeepers” rather than what we really do — never happen. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Saving Money and Surviving the Healthcare Crisis*
January 14th, 2011 by RyanDuBosar in Health Policy, Research
No Comments »
Far more primary care doctors report detailed referrals than do specialists report receiving them. The same applies in reverse. Specialists report returning quality consultations, while primary care physicians report receiving them far less often.
Researchers reported in Archives of Internal Medicine that perceptions of communication regarding referrals and consultations differed widely. While 69.3 percent of primary care physicians reported “always” or “most of the time” sending a patient’s history and the reason for the consultation to specialists, only 34.8 percent of specialists said they “always” or “most of the time” received the information. And, while 80.6 percent of specialists said they “always” or “most of the time” send consultation results to the referring physicians, only 62.2 percent of primary care physicians said they received it.
So where are the reports going? Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at ACP Internist*
January 10th, 2011 by DavedeBronkart in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News
No Comments »
In December, the Society for Participatory Medicine’s executive committee appointed health law attorney David Harlow to represent the Society in public policy matters. Regular readers of HealthBlawg::David Harlow’s Health Care Law Blog know what a patient-centered, participatory thinker David is. This is his first report.
I am delighted to offer my first report as Public Policy Committee Chair for the Society of Participatory Medicine. I encourage all of you who are not yet Society members to join, and I encourage new and old members to consider volunteering to help with the wide range of public policy issues facing us today.
Over the past couple of months, the Public Policy Committee has gotten its sea legs. We are beginning to add the Society’s voice to the national discourse on patient engagement in a formal manner. As planning for health reform and related initiatives becomes more concrete, it is clear that patient engagement and patient-centeredness are key issues to be considered. For example, it was encouraging to hear Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Don Berwick speak about the “Triple Aim” at the Accountable Care Organization (ACO) workshop this fall, and explicitly link the achievement of the triple aim — better care for individuals, better health for populations, and reduced per-capita costs — to patient engagement and empowerment.
There will be many opportunities for the Society to engage with policymakers, payors and provider organizations as this work continues. CMS and its many related organizations, as well as many provider and private sector payor organizations recognize that without maintaining a focus on the patient at the core, health reform and related health IT initiatives cannot be successful. We’ve kicked things off on two fronts — ACOs and Stage 2 Meaningful Use rules. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at e-Patients.net*
