August 6th, 2009 by GruntDoc in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Opinion
1 Comment »
The Happy Hospitalist, generally an excellent blogger, wrote yesterday about how salaried docs must be delivering better care than those greedy FFS docs, because the Cleveland Clinic does a terrific job with docs on a salary. I suspect their excellent outcomes have nothing to do with reimbursement model and a lot more to do with systems and a strong gatekeeper model.
He totally missed the elephant in the room in the Big Group Clinic model: who gets the money for doing the work.
He cites as an example a GI doc who left the Clinic for independent practice and quadrupled his income. Let’s say he’s working as hard as he did in the Clinic; is he billing more than the Clinic did? I doubt the Clinic wasn’t billing the usual amount for the work, so 3/4 of this docs’ billing went where?
I suspect it went into the overhead of the Clinic. This isn’t a knock on them, it works for their group, so fine. Other groups do essentially the same thing. It’s legal and morally defensible, and some docs don’t mind being salaried.
Salaried docs in a big Multispecialty Clinic have different incomes, but not as radically disparate as the non-clinic model. As a way to somewhat equalize RVRBS issues it works (I wouldn’t want to be in the room when salaries come up, though).
What salaries do not do is get docs to work harder, see more patients. Some docs are very dedicated, motivated people who would work for rent and grocery money. Others on a salary would do the minimum: if every patient is more work and more liability without more pay, well, why work more/harder? As an incentive to produce nothing beats getting paid for it.
(This isn’t an endorsement of excessive or un-necessary procedures; there are greedy jerks in all professions).
Also, a happy side effect of getting paid for what you do rather than for having a pulse is those who work hard resent those that don’t (but who would make the same on salary) a whole lot less. Way less inter-group stress.
Salaries aren’t all bad, but they’re not the Key to Great Healthcare.
Discolsure: I’ve worked ED’s both ways, and much prefer fee for service.
*This blog post was originally published at GruntDoc*
July 27th, 2009 by DrWes in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News
1 Comment »
Yesterday in our cath conference, we discussed the substudy from the prospective randomized trial called PREVENT-IV just published in the New England Journal of Medicine. That study evaluated the major adverse cardiac event rates of minimally invasive vein harvesting compared to open vein harvesting prior to coronary bypass surgery.
I was surprised to see that minimally-invasive vein harvesting had a higher combined complication rate of death, myocardial infarction (heart attack) and need for revascularization in the patients who received vein grafts harvested by the minimally-invasive technique. Following the presentation of the data, our surgeons were asked why this might be the case. While none knew for sure, they postulated that the art of harvesting vein-conduits using endovascular techniques might play a role (it’s more difficult), or the effects of the thrombolytic state induced by on-pump bypass vs. off-pump bypass might create the discrepency in post-surgery vein survival, since patients are less likely to develop clinical thromboses in the post-open chest bypass population.
So this morning, I was surprised that President Obama toured Cleveland Clinic yesterday and had such an up-front experience with minimally-invasive robotic surgical techniques for mitral valve repair that hardly represents mainstream American health care. While the marvels of the technology cannot be disputed, like the endovascular vein harvesting study above, might we find that robotics could be as deleterious to patients compared to open chest techniques? After all, these techniques have yet to be compared in multi-center trials to more conventional open techniques for mitral valve repair. But more concerning as we move forward is this question: will academic centers be granted more funds to test comparative effectiveness research for robotics at the expense of front-line American health care? Surely, this won’t be, will it?
Probably.
But when I see pieces like this I wonder why the article does not question the cost and risks of this technique compared to conventional open-chest procedures, especially in this era of touting the need for health care cost containment. How much is this piece about the marketing of this technique to the community (for financial gain) or to the President (for obtaining grants or political favors)?
Perhaps we should ask ourselves how many of the physicians and surgeons at Cleveland Clinic stand to earn a seat on the proposed MEDPAC board that will determine if Congress will approve payment for robotic techniques even when few data exist to show their superiority over conventional techniques.
Now that might make for some really interesting reading.
*This blog post was originally published at Dr. Wes*
October 29th, 2008 by Dr. Val Jones in Celebrity Interviews
No Comments »
 |
|
Joan Lunden
|
Former Good Morning America host, Joan Lunden, is getting behind the personal health record industry. As the daughter of a physician, Joan grew up believing that she’d become a doctor one day. She told me that all that came to a screeching halt when she “realized that she didn’t like blood or stitches.” But Joan has always kept women and children’s health advocacy initiatives close to her heart. She will soon be starring in a new Lifetime TV show called Health Corner. I caught up with her about her recent work with PassportMD.
Listen to the podcast here, or read a summary of our discussion below.
Dr. Val: Tell me about your experiences in taking care of your mom, and what led you to become involved with a PHR company.
Lunden: I lost my brother to type 2 diabetes a little over a year ago. As it happens, he had been managing my mom’s medical care, and so with his loss I needed to step in and take it over. Of course she lives on one coast and I live on the other. I’ve got 4 little kids (two sets of twins) and three young adult children. It becomes really daunting to keep track of everyone’s medical care. Around that time I met some folks from PassportMD, and when they showed me how easy it could be to keep everyone’s records in one place, I said, “this is exactly what I need.”
I think I’m really typical of a lot of women out there in what we call “the sandwich generation.” Today a high percentage of women with small children are working outside of the home. It’s really a lot to juggle – a career, raising a family, and getting everyone to the doctor on time – forget about getting YOU to the doctor on time. As good as we women are at nurturing others, we tend to be at the bottom of our own to-do lists.
What I really love about PassportMD is not just the organization (I can immediately see all my kids’ vaccination schedules for example) but the fact that I’m building a family medical history. It’s so important to know your family history so that you can engage in appropriate screening tests and take preventive health measures. This PHR even sends you reminders when its time for immunizations, mammograms, or other appropriate screening tests.
Dr. Val: As a doctor I’ve encountered resistance to PHRs from patients because they don’t want to have to enter all the data themselves. They’d like it to be auto-populated with their medical record data so that they don’t have to start from scratch. Has the PassportMD tool solved that problem?
Read more »
